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 in Talks to Build Cable Set-Top Box to Display Live Television
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except apple actually cares about bringing new technology to the masses and comcast just loves being a dick.
No matter what you believe, XBox 360 sales are seriously dropping, and in the last quarter Apple sold more Apple TVs than Microsoft sold XBox 360.
"Global Xbox 360 hardware sales for the last financial quarter were down 48 per cent year-on-year, Microsoft has announced. It sold 1.4 million units between 1st January and 31st March, down from 2.7 million during the same period last year. Lifetime sales are now at 67.2 million."
sorry, you're dead right, just feels near as dammit free (it is free for some pensioners)
I actually like their current model of subscriptions to tv shows; it just should be cheaper. They should go back to the TV rental model, but it won't work until I can get hbo shows the next day instead of the next year and no blackouts on the MLB. Do this apple/hbo/mlb and I won't have to get my content for free from other places.
It's call market saturation. You know how many 360s are out there.
Go look up Microsoft Live membership. Live is a money maker for Microsoft.
----------
fanboy alert!
If a lot of people call their cable provider maybe we can make a difference. The first cable provider to cave is the one that will win. They all know that. So let's make it interesting.
Everyone call the cable provider they are not using and tell them you will switch if they provide Apple set top boxes.
Everyone call the cable provider they are not using and tell them you will switch if they provide Apple set top boxes.
lifetime sales 67.2 million
that's close to most households having one. and with amazon instant video its a killer TV platform
"The WSJ suggests Apple's set-top box will be an aftermarket item that could cost "hundreds of dollars" rather than $10-$15 per month for the standard one provided by cable companies."
Those POS DVRs the cable company rents are also hundreds of dollars to buy outright, and even then you can't keep the hardware when you are finished with some providers (read the fine print). My TWC DVR is replaced one every six months because they recycle half-operational gear as much as they possibly can.
I agree though, this seems more plausible than a line of Apple television sets.
Those POS DVRs the cable company rents are also hundreds of dollars to buy outright, and even then you can't keep the hardware when you are finished with some providers (read the fine print). My TWC DVR is replaced one every six months because they recycle half-operational gear as much as they possibly can.
I agree though, this seems more plausible than a line of Apple television sets.
Interestingly i went from using an Xbox 360 to using an Apple TV as a media device , right about the time the Xbox went from the Blades interface, to the new advert ridden horribly junk it has now.
As for file formats, meh, i convert everything using handbreak and drop it into itunes , which in turn keeps my library organized automatically, all my ripped DvDs and shows recorded by my Elgato Eye TV are run through Subler to add a nice cover art and show information, and its all accessible on a clean, simple interface.
Ill never go back to using an Xbox as a media player, heck, since they cluttered the interface my 360 has been gathering dust because i don't play games on it, whilst me PS3 gets all the use.
A coax is mandatory for many AT&T installs which use what is called an iNID (Intelligent Network Interface Device) which is required for those of us who live a certan distance from AT&Ts equipment. iNIDs do not support set top boxes over Ethernet. In order to be compatable with AT&T though it would also need to support Microsoft's Lightroom (TV delivery technology). Farther complicating things is the fact that AT&T includes a DVR for free with most plans which makes it less likely that people would want there own DVR.
Channels that provide crap that no one wants to watch go under, market competition ramps up, and we get better content on the whole.
I can't be the only one that is tired of being forced into buying bundles of 100s of crap channels just to get one or two that actually have something worthwhile.
it's not just the cable companies
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.
Basically the amalgamation of content providers, producers, and delivery modes must get into a new comfort zone before anything major is going to shake up this industry. We're not dealing with techs or even mid-level managers here; these are C level executives who are only looking at the bottom line for their companies and who may not fully understand or even use some of the new technology available.
I would say NBC and Comcast took a giant leap recently with the streaming of the Olympics. Yes, it was a captive audience, and yes, they controlled the streaming to maximize their audiences but they did stream the content which had never been done before. I'd guess in four years the next Olympics will see even more variety in what's available from alternative media sources.
Meanwhile, we can hope that Apple (or others) can negotiate deals with content providers to get content delivered without the traditional delivery mechanisms getting in the way. I'm hopeful we will see some dramatic breakthroughs in the next few years. Surprisingly, Comcast's acquisition of NBC may actually help speed up this transition as they now control both content and delivery of a major provider and they are looking for new revenue streams to augment their diminishing cable business.
But in the short term be wary of anyone claiming that Apple will have this or that content until and unless Apple is able to negotiate a content deal.
For my part, I've been off the cable for two years and rely on over-the-air digital broadcasts in a major market. I use Apple/TV and vudu for movies and stream whatever I can from the internet. ymmv.
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.
Basically the amalgamation of content providers, producers, and delivery modes must get into a new comfort zone before anything major is going to shake up this industry. We're not dealing with techs or even mid-level managers here; these are C level executives who are only looking at the bottom line for their companies and who may not fully understand or even use some of the new technology available.
I would say NBC and Comcast took a giant leap recently with the streaming of the Olympics. Yes, it was a captive audience, and yes, they controlled the streaming to maximize their audiences but they did stream the content which had never been done before. I'd guess in four years the next Olympics will see even more variety in what's available from alternative media sources.
Meanwhile, we can hope that Apple (or others) can negotiate deals with content providers to get content delivered without the traditional delivery mechanisms getting in the way. I'm hopeful we will see some dramatic breakthroughs in the next few years. Surprisingly, Comcast's acquisition of NBC may actually help speed up this transition as they now control both content and delivery of a major provider and they are looking for new revenue streams to augment their diminishing cable business.
But in the short term be wary of anyone claiming that Apple will have this or that content until and unless Apple is able to negotiate a content deal.
For my part, I've been off the cable for two years and rely on over-the-air digital broadcasts in a major market. I use Apple/TV and vudu for movies and stream whatever I can from the internet. ymmv.
2003
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=215190&cable+satellite#post215190
Item 4
"4. A TV recorder system (iTV and TVraid) that plugs into the TV port on your EXISTING satellite or cable or broadcast output and does any channel switching with a universal remote interface and any scheduling with a .Mac account."
2007
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3228597&cable+satellite#post3228597
"So what is the current leading edge content capture and DVR application for the Mac? Or do you need a PC as a video server to capture your satellite, cable, broadcast and local content channels?"
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3457947&cable+satellite#post3457947
"Your internet connection goes to that and/or a wireless router. Your TV content via cable or satellite goes through that box and to the TV. Does TV even deal with that incoming content at all or do you need EyeTV for that?"
2009
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=8500898&cable+satellite#post8500898
"I for one think all layers of artists should participate in recurring fees for their work, whether as a product sale like a CD, DVD, individual download, etc. Public display fees are different for a reason. The fees are collected from consumers and aggregated whether through admission fees to a physical venue, subscription fees for broadcast cable and satellite, or advertising compensated "free" broadcast TV. Note I didn't include pay per view in the second category. It is in the first.
The LICENSE for a personal view is different from a group view. DirecTV for example has different prices for personal installs and installs in bars."
2010
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9259146&cable+satellite#post9259146
"In the end game, we will get all of our "TV" content via the internet. We will pay a monthly fee like we do for cable or satellite. We may access some of our content via the other methods if we have it, but even DirecTV will be a subscription we receive physically over fiber in urban areas."
Rocketman
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=215190&cable+satellite#post215190
Item 4
"4. A TV recorder system (iTV and TVraid) that plugs into the TV port on your EXISTING satellite or cable or broadcast output and does any channel switching with a universal remote interface and any scheduling with a .Mac account."
2007
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3228597&cable+satellite#post3228597
"So what is the current leading edge content capture and DVR application for the Mac? Or do you need a PC as a video server to capture your satellite, cable, broadcast and local content channels?"
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3457947&cable+satellite#post3457947
"Your internet connection goes to that and/or a wireless router. Your TV content via cable or satellite goes through that box and to the TV. Does TV even deal with that incoming content at all or do you need EyeTV for that?"
2009
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=8500898&cable+satellite#post8500898
"I for one think all layers of artists should participate in recurring fees for their work, whether as a product sale like a CD, DVD, individual download, etc. Public display fees are different for a reason. The fees are collected from consumers and aggregated whether through admission fees to a physical venue, subscription fees for broadcast cable and satellite, or advertising compensated "free" broadcast TV. Note I didn't include pay per view in the second category. It is in the first.
The LICENSE for a personal view is different from a group view. DirecTV for example has different prices for personal installs and installs in bars."
2010
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9259146&cable+satellite#post9259146
"In the end game, we will get all of our "TV" content via the internet. We will pay a monthly fee like we do for cable or satellite. We may access some of our content via the other methods if we have it, but even DirecTV will be a subscription we receive physically over fiber in urban areas."
Rocketman
So it appears apple doesn't know what to do with ATV. Is that what I'm gathering from all of this?
An Apple TV with the capabilities of a Tivo... would be sick.
ADDITIONAL: DVR, Streaming, AirPlay, plus more... yes please.
ADDITIONAL: DVR, Streaming, AirPlay, plus more... yes please.
Don't talk to the cable companies. Talk directly to the content creators, use your war chest to sue the heck out of anyone propping up the cable franchise monopoly scam, and lobby hard at the Federal level to bust up municipal laws that have created the problem to begin with. Deliver all content direct from the creators over IP and a la carte. Do a streaming download that I can keep on the box as long as I want, or retroactively download forever. No tuners, no ads, I control the content, and no waiting.
Charge any price. It would kill cable. It would kill satellite. It'd also kill piracy, which is why the content creators should want it. But it'd be too new, it would turn the entire television audience into the customer instead of the advertisers, and some very old big industries with an iron grip on our politicians would stop it from happening.
Until Apple can break the shackles of the status quo in the television industry, Apple TV is just a dream.
Charge any price. It would kill cable. It would kill satellite. It'd also kill piracy, which is why the content creators should want it. But it'd be too new, it would turn the entire television audience into the customer instead of the advertisers, and some very old big industries with an iron grip on our politicians would stop it from happening.
Until Apple can break the shackles of the status quo in the television industry, Apple TV is just a dream.
Everyone knows that's where its all headed. Hey cable companies, adapt or get out of the way, there is a steam roller on the horizon with your name on it. 
Seriously, as fast as home internet is today, I think it needs to get more consistent. I have a 50Mbps connection but it often times just pauses when I'm trying to watch something. Not sure if it is a problem at the source (too much demand/slow server) or my ISP, not something you have to worry about on cable/satellite TV.
Seriously, as fast as home internet is today, I think it needs to get more consistent. I have a 50Mbps connection but it often times just pauses when I'm trying to watch something. Not sure if it is a problem at the source (too much demand/slow server) or my ISP, not something you have to worry about on cable/satellite TV.
Haha - Apple will never go that route. They always choose the path of least resistance, partnering up with anyone who will pay them cash.
----------
Everyone knows that's where its all headed. Hey cable companies, adapt or get out of the way, there is a steam roller on the horizon with your name on it.
Seriously, as fast as home internet is today, I think it needs to get more consistent. I have a 50Mbps connection but it often times just pauses when I'm trying to watch something. Not sure if it is a problem at the source (too much demand/slow server) or my ISP, not something you have to worry about on cable/satellite TV.
Just because you said that doesn't make it true. The regional cable monopolies are government enforced and I don't see how Apple throwing its weight around will help.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Over and over, it's this same misconception. Here's the other view...
Television commercials subsidize a lot of the cost of the creation of the programming we like. Channels "we" never watch run commercials that we never watch. Those commercials generate revenues that flows to the Studios that make programming we do like to watch. This model generates lots of OPM (other people's money)- those companies that pay for the commercials- which flows to the content creators so that they can keep making ALL of the programs they make... including those we like to watch.
Get rid of those "crap channels" and you kill that commercial-based revenue. Then, someone else has to make up that difference or the quality of the programming we like must fall to match the new reality of less revenue for the content creators. Assuming we would want to maintain the quality of the programming that we like, who would be left to make up for the loss of that commercial revenue made by running commercials on channels we never watch? Cable/Satt company? Apple? Us? That's all who would be left in that vision, and it should be easy to imagine which one of those three would foot the (shortfall) bill.
So see it as it really is. We're not paying for lots of channels we never watch. We're paying for channels we want to watch. Yes, we can also access a bunch of other channels we never watch but their inclusion doesn't mean we pay more for them. In fact, their inclusion means THEY pay more (through the commercial subsidies) for us.
Just about every modern DVR/Cable box allows us to set up a fav list of channels. Those that don't want to flip through a bunch of channels they don't want to watch could just set up their favs with ONLY the channels they do want to watch. Only watch 10 channels? Make a 10 channel FAV list and you'll only see 10 channels in your guide. Then, all those other channels would be invisible, yet they would be generating that OPM revenue in the background so the Studios can keep making the shows we love at the quality we love.
Get rid of them and/or get rid of those commercials and somebody has to foot the bill if we don't want the quality of production to fall. Cable company. Apple. Us. Guess who.
Last edited: