Apple in Talks to Build Cable Set-Top Box to Display Live Television

[Peace]

The cable companies or Broadcasters (in the UK) will resist as much as possible. For they know that once Apple are allowed a tangible foothold in their industry it could be all over for them and they will lose revenue control, as they have with the Music industry.

I am not sure on this either way, but you will certainly just be exchanging one master for another in most respects. Personally, I am perfectly happy with my ATV, Sky (satellite/cable) subscription and my iTunes account as it is. In the UK we get free on-Demand TV from all the big 4 channels, we also get (without additional fee) live TV access via computer / iPhone & iPad from Sky TV. They even provide free apps that let you do this.

For those of you thinking that it will be cheaper if Apple gets involved, or that you will somehow have a significantly higher-level freedom and content, this is fantasy. Also Apple is not a content provider, unlike the BBC, HBO, FOX etc, so it not as simple as dealing with the content providers as some posters have mentioned.

Previous Apple involvement has shown that you will have to pay a price (not just fiscal), as they will control what they allow you to pay for and what hardware / features you can use. Drum roll for the ‘Apple Television set’…?

Apple will need to hope that at least one of the larger Broadcasters breaks ranks and sells them all out… Oop’s sorry I mean accepts a generous offer…

Things are different in the U.S.

Subscribers pay the cable company regardless of the maker of the box. Comcast doesn't make their own boxes. Just the really bad GUI software installed on the box. Because of this I don't think the major cable companies have much to fear from Apple except being one-upped on a GUI. They still control the media that comes from the studios.

From what I've read all Apple wants to do is make a better GUI on it's own box and integrate the cable companies media with what Apple has to offer.

 

[MacDav]

Also an Apple TV makes no noise, while an XBox 360 is like having a 747 in your room.

----------



Netflix content sucks compared to cable TV packages.

Some of it does, some does not. Cable TV packages are what suck. You have to
buy a bunch of crappy channels you don't want, to get the ones you do want, and they are all loaded to the gills with horrific ads. An "ala carte" solution would be better, but you can't get that. I can't believe you think cable packages
are a good thing.

 

[Geckotek]

Did you miss my own example... that I get broadband from either Comcast or AT&T?

Or are you trying to imply that DSL broadband can be good enough for streaming HD video via an Apple-replacement box to an average household? To 2 TVs simultaneously? 3?

And even so, are you thinking that if- say- Comcast jacks up it's broadband bill to combat Apple's replacement, that- say- AT&T will leave it's broadband pricing where it is? Do you not notice that when- say- Verizon jacks up a bandwidth rate, AT&T quickly follows (or vice versa). That's what happens in monopoly & duopoly. If Comcast jacks it up to $150 to make up for the loss of cable revenues, AT&T DSL pricing will just follow it there. AT&T has no interest EITHER in letting Apple take their tv-subscription revenues using AT&Ts pipes.

I don't understand the argument. You seem to be assuming that broadband rates would not go up to make up the difference. Or maybe you are assuming that there is actual competition in broadband rates across the nation? Whatever the case, no company wants to just let someone like Apple take a big chunk of their revenues. And in this particular scenario, for Apple to succeed requires the use of pipes owned by those very companies. I can't believe that anyone would think the tolls wouldn't rise to protect their revenues.

You're absolutely right, there's no use, we should all give up. We'll always be ruled by the overlords of our TVs and should just be content to live out our days as Zombies glued to and stuck with what the providers give us in the way they think we should consume it.

 

[WordMasterRice]

I think Cable Companies have a simple question...do they want to be AT&T or RIM?

Apple can support live tv via OTA or cable pretty easily. The fact they gave in on Hulu suggests they are ok giving up share on content in exchange for hdw sales

Scientific Atlanta will get crushed

Scientific Atlanta is a division of Cisco, not exactly a small company.

 

[MacDav]

Perhaps you are missing what I am suggesting.

When you subscribe to a set of services, currently they are amalgamated in the living room. All these pipes converge at the back of the TV.

This leads to expensive equipment, massive duplication, a bad user interface and so on. Technically, its a lame solution.

My proposal is that the services are received and amalgamated in a data centre. (Imagine a building-sized TiVo serving everyone.)

The recording happens there. The channel switching happens there. Content is unified and searchable in a better way. The data center builds a unique grid of channels for each customer - and delivers it as a single stream.

The user then watches the shows. Has infinite recording. Instant channel switching - all under a unified interface.

All that gear, all that wiring, hard drives, power adaptors, remotes would be redundant. Along with the engineers, call centers, cable cards.

Perhaps you are missing what you are suggesting. You've got a data center with all your programing in digital format that is available to you. Why would you need to "record" anything? It's already been recorded on the data center servers. All you do is access it from home or wherever. It's already been done with Netflix, iTunes, Amazon, etc. The only difference is they don't have everything available and probably never will. There is too much competition for any single company to have it all.

 

[chirpie]

One box to stream everything from your computer and to display your iPad's screen and to view live television? This will change everything.

Is there anything hardware-wise lacking on an Apple TV 3 that wouldn't be able to pull this off with a firmware update?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Is there anything hardware-wise lacking on an Apple TV 3 that wouldn't be able to pull this off with a firmware update?

May not have enough horsepower & memory to stream from it to other devices (I think it's only from devices to it right now)... especially, if it would be fed a live signal per this rumor.

 

[Peace]

Is there anything hardware-wise lacking on an Apple TV 3 that wouldn't be able to pull this off with a firmware update?

COAX for the live television.

 

[Darien Red Sox]

Because of this I don't think the major cable companies have much to fear from Apple except being one-upped on a GUI. They still control the media that comes from the studios.

From what I've read all Apple wants to do is make a better GUI on it's own box and integrate the cable companies media with what Apple has to offer.

What are the chances that they will use Apple's GUI? Samsung had a nice GUI but instead of using it Cablevision stuck there own on through an emulator. (It is meant to run on there older Scientific Atlantic boxes.

----------

Is there anything hardware-wise lacking on an Apple TV 3 that wouldn't be able to pull this off with a firmware update?

Even though the Apple TV 3 won't accept a cable input it might be able to stream from this new Apple box to let you watch live TV and DVR recordings. Now for AT&T u verse it might be able to function and stream live TV without the need for a host box.

 

[louis Fashion]

Kabletowne et al

Kabletowne aka CommunistKast aka Comcast and their satanic brothers have most of American by the throat. A LA CARTE is the only answer. I will hook up to anyone who will charge me ONLY for the content I want. If Saddam himself offered a nice package of the 5 or 6 channels I watch I would subscribe. If only the nice Appl folks would devote the money they waste on lawsuits to killing cable as we know it ~ we would be golden, flowers would bloom in Winter and everyone would be able to afford HBO.

 

[SBlue1]

We want NFL!

 

[Rodimus Prime]

Things are different in the U.S.

Subscribers pay the cable company regardless of the maker of the box. Comcast doesn't make their own boxes. Just the really bad GUI software installed on the box. Because of this I don't think the major cable companies have much to fear from Apple except being one-upped on a GUI. They still control the media that comes from the studios.

From what I've read all Apple wants to do is make a better GUI on it's own box and integrate the cable companies media with what Apple has to offer.

oh but they do have a lot to fear. Apple could and would easily start strong arming the cable guys demanding a cut of the revenue and then demand that the cost not be passed on. The providers are paying Apple for the privilege of using their system.

 

[bigchrisfgb]

Things are different in the U.S.

Subscribers pay the cable company regardless of the maker of the box. Comcast doesn't make their own boxes. Just the really bad GUI software installed on the box. Because of this I don't think the major cable companies have much to fear from Apple except being one-upped on a GUI. They still control the media that comes from the studios.

From what I've read all Apple wants to do is make a better GUI on it's own box and integrate the cable companies media with what Apple has to offer.

It's the same in the UK.
Virgin Media who now use Tivo boxes get their boxes made from Cisco and Samsung.

Sky have their boxes made by Cisco, Samsung, and Amstrad.

All the boxes look a like, work the same and have the same software and GU, you can't tell the difference apart from a small label on the back of the box telling you who made it.

----------

oh but they do have a lot to fear. Apple could and would easily start strong arming the cable guys demanding a cut of the revenue and then demand that the cost not be passed on. The providers are paying Apple for the privilege of using their system.

Erm no they don't. The cable companies won't deal with Apple if they think Apple will just go ahead dictate to them whats going to happen. The cable companies, here in the UK, over in the USA, Canada and everywhere else won't drop their current makers of set top boxes for Apple only for Apple to then turn around and say "Give us a cut now". Even if they did then the cable companies would then turn around to Apple and tell them where to go. The cable companies are already established, Apple needs them not them needing Apple.

The only way Apple can play the cable companies if they own content that the cable companies want, that would mean either.

A. Apple starting up their own channel and start creating their own TV shows and content.

B. Apple buying an existing TV company or two and telling the cable companies they can't have their content unless they do what Apple says.

C. Apple buy all the rights to all the popular TV shows and shows them via iTunes only. This would have to be done on a large scale though because 1 or 2 shows wouldn't really matter to the cable companies, they would just drop them and replace them with other shows. Another way to do this would be to buy the rights to sports, NHL, NFL, NBA, MLS, in the UK it would pretty much just be Football/Soccer (which the latest right were only sold 2 months ago).

 

[bearcatrp]

Why build another box when the apple tv would do. Just build an app similar to Netflix or Hulu and charge a monthly fee. Only thing to adjust on the ATV is memory. 256GB SSD would work for me.

 

[Rogifan]

This Reuters article argues we'll see an actual TV before we'd see a STB because the cable cos have no interest in partnering with a company that is also a content provider. For me I think a lot of it is wall street speculation on the notion that Apple needs another revolutionary product and thinking TV is where it's at. And with fans its just wishful thinking more than anything else. So I'll believe it if/when I see it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/16/us-column-cable-companies-idUSBRE87F1CY20120816

 

[driceman]

How much can Apple charge your credit card for that TV and how much for that al-a-carte service?

That is the question, isn't it? I'd pay more than a standard HDTV, of course (with all those features built in that seems perfectly reasonable), especially if they can provide lots of options for what you buy. I'd love to see the options to buy and rent movies and shows, just like on the current iTunes, with the addition of a subscription to a channel.

To more directly answer your question... It's tough, because sometimes Apple goes overboard (the original iPhone at its original price was WAY too high), but other times, even if their product is expensive, it hits the mark (all of the iPads). In the case of the former, it's just too much to ask for a phone. In the case of the latter, you get what you pay for, the best tablet on the market in terms of critical acclaim, customer satisfaction, and of course, revenue. So I can see them going too high or going just right.

I personally think somewhere between $1000-1500 would be the right area to shoot for, but I don't know what costs are involved in this sort of thing. I just use the products and enjoy them.

 

[ixodes]

To launch the iPhone they partnered with AT&T, to launch this project it will be interesting to see what Cable Co, they partner with.

 

[chirpie]

COAX for the live television.

See, that's the part I don't get. My mother-in-law has a Chinese product called iTalkBB TV. It has lots of chinese cable channels that are just encoded channels that stream (Usually about a 5 minute delay from actual time.) Why not do that? Why bother with coax at all?

 

[MarcelNBG]

Coax

COAX for the live television.

Who needs COAX if there was a Stream on the INTERNET?

----------

Why build another box when the apple tv would do. Just build an app similar to Netflix or Hulu and charge a monthly fee. Only thing to adjust on the ATV is memory. 256GB SSD would work for me.

Why save anything locally if you could stream it?

 

[GoCubsGo]

I imagine this has been said but if the device uses cable card technology then no thanks. I am constantly losing the handshake between the card and Time Warner, so much so that I won't renew my TiVo subscription at the end of this year.

 

[charlituna]

Because iTunes store doesn't have live tv. It's also way too expensive. The main networks are pretty much free.

It doesn't have live tv right now. The prices are steep now.

Who knows what tomorrow could bring

----------

Steve woud've never allowed this.

Give it a rest. Just because it is your opinion that something is bad doesn't mean Steve would share that opinion. Hell if this is happening it was probably his idea

 

[charlituna]

1. Cable operators does not have the same problem record labels had when iTunes music store came out, I mean, no piracy.

That's bunk. Tv shows are he number one torrent item

And its the cable companies and their contracts that crested much of the cock up you refer to. Truth is from the consumer side, a la carte networks, if not shows, is the better wy to go. The sooner we get the networks off just using Nielsen and cable tv service is just another option, the better for customers.

----------

. This must be a made up rumor, Apple and any other company only needs FCC approval to make a cable card device.

Which begs the question, if the tv sets are in full production where is the public info FCC paperwork

----------

Most of the programming is duplicated junk that just reruns non-stop.

Fun tidbit, those reruns are why Apple can't sell those seasons, why Netflix can't stream them. The deals are exclusive? Only that net can broadcast them and even Apple etc is considered broadcasting

----------

Why are all the content providers idiots that don't just look at what the public wants and come up with a solution to provide it instead of trying to come up with some castrated version of what they think is best?

Because they can't see that the old system is broken to the point of needing to be put own

This is my industry so imagine how I feel. Out of a job because a show had poor ratings but then to hear the network office was slamed with letters and we were crazy popular with the downloads from iTunes. Just doesn't make sense

----------

Hope whatever they are doing will be available worldwide.

That depends on the studios and nets, not Apple

 

[charlituna]

Siri? Who wants to talk to their set top box?

I don't in particular but if they worked out a way for me to use Siri on my phone to control my STB I might give it a try.

----------

Getting Apple into the mix is going to be both difficult and expensive. Look at the current limited Apple/TV offering (and Vudu and Hulu) and you get an idea of how difficult it is for Apple to negotiate a content deal.

For streaming perhaps, but already have a lot of that content avail next day on iTunes.
Bump the quality so everything has SD, 720 and 1080. Bump that pack down to the SD only price. Season pricing with complete my on all titles. And get the holdouts like HBO to stop waiting for home video to release and Apple would be in their way to a winning system

----------

. It'd also kill piracy, which is why the content creators should want it. .

Unless they are adding global releases at first OTA and getting the nets ns studios off Nielsens teet, it might wound but it won't kill

----------

What we need is a new revenue model to help support shows I like(Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Entourage).

Get the nets to start counting online viewership proceeds. They likely already have the numbers, they just are including them in the math

----------

I understand. But "I" is extraordinarily subjective. Your list will differ from mine (and does). Our lists will differ from the next guy. Etc.

And yet the Ratings system is based on the idea that the lists aren't that different which why they only need to count say 5 African American males between 18-25 because all males in that demo have basically the sme tastes.

That's why we need a new model. So all three of us get a vote instead of just me and they assume our tastes match

----------

Again, see the "crap" channels as more places for companies to pay for commercials to subsidize the cost of production for Studios that make the programming we do like.

Except it doesn't work like that. Those shows will fund the startup but once a show is on the air it has to earn its place on its own. If its close and getting closer every week, they might borrow a little 'crap' money but it has to be very close. Otherwise the money is just put in the coffers as 'profit'.

If I worked the way you suggest we would still have Firefly, Alcatraz, Terra Nova on the air, supported by American Idol etc.

 

[StyxMaker]

Growing up however, I remember we had satellite, telephone, AOL broadband and at one point satellite and cable, including cable internet when we got rid of AOL. Then a cellphone for me, my sister, and my mom (my dad's work provided his) which were an additional $145.

Growing up we had one telephone attached to the wall with a wire and an antenna on top of a really tall poll that we could point in different directions to get three channels on our black and white television.