Well, I think it might have to be a phased approach. They will probably have to offer some sort of cable set top box/DVR style appliance first. Then offer their own content somewhere down the line once the technology is much more fleshed-out.
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
Well, I think it might have to be a phased approach. They will probably have to offer some sort of cable set top box/DVR style appliance first. Then offer their own content somewhere down the line once the technology is much more fleshed-out.
Appleinsider July 24th:
versus Wikipedia on XBOX360:
plus a couple of millions in the last year...
Now, you could construct your case or just see that the U.S. reached a certain saturation on XBOX360 and you also have to see that the Playstation3 takes a share in this as well - especially since it has a Blueray player built-in. I like Apple and for $99, it is a good price for the AppleTV, but arguing that a device barely sold 7mio units worldwide will take the place of a unit sold almost ten times that (Wikipedia):
is, in my eyes, silly. Also, you forgot to mention the reason for the recent drop in sales - and there is a parallel to the iPhone - the new XBOX is rumored to launch in Fall.
What we need is a new revenue model to help support shows I like(Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Entourage).
I would hate for Apple to go this route. I continue to witness the methods in which cable companies try to render cable cards useless and force you to use their box. I deal with this in TiVo constantly and was hoping apple had finally 'broken the code' and would relieve me from my dependence on the cable company.
I think if I hear someone say "a la carte" one more time I'm gonna schart! It's not gonna happen. Cable companies have no incentive to let you cheap bastiages pay for channels individually. .....and I'm OK with that. IMO cable prices are pretty darn reasonable. I live in San Diego and have Cox Cable. For about $150/month I have an incredibly fast broadband connection and more channels than I can count; many of which are broadcast in HD. Customer service is great and I can count on one hand how many problems I've had with the service over the last 10 years.
Now let's move on to the important stuff.....
I can't see Apple building an actual TV for a number of reasons. I'm sure those reasons have already been listed a bazillion times so feel free to Google "why Apple wil never sell a TV." That said, creating a cable card equipped Apple TV is brilliant! I've had an Apple TV since day one and I've always liked the little bugger. I rent movies on iTunes and stream music all the time with my ATV. I think if there is any weak link with the cable companies it's the program guide. It's better than it used to be but it is still rather clunky. I remember years ago when I bought an Alienware Media Center PC. The thing I was most impressed with was the guide. It looked really really slick and the search features were stellar. Hell, I could input the name of a movie and it would search *every* available source over the next (best as I can remember) 30 days and allow me to record it. Did I mention the guide looked really really slick? Feel free to swap the word "sick" for "slick" if you're under 30.
I'm not saying cable boxes are difficult to use but they are not as intuitive as they could be and they can be quite clunky at times. For instance, using the remote driven cursor to input names of movies is pretty archaic. I think when Jobs said he " had cracked" this whole TV thing he was talking about bringing the simplicity and elegance of ATV to include controlling all functions (program guide, DVR, input methods) to already existing TV's.
Now let's move on to the important stuff.....
I can't see Apple building an actual TV for a number of reasons. I'm sure those reasons have already been listed a bazillion times so feel free to Google "why Apple wil never sell a TV." That said, creating a cable card equipped Apple TV is brilliant! I've had an Apple TV since day one and I've always liked the little bugger. I rent movies on iTunes and stream music all the time with my ATV. I think if there is any weak link with the cable companies it's the program guide. It's better than it used to be but it is still rather clunky. I remember years ago when I bought an Alienware Media Center PC. The thing I was most impressed with was the guide. It looked really really slick and the search features were stellar. Hell, I could input the name of a movie and it would search *every* available source over the next (best as I can remember) 30 days and allow me to record it. Did I mention the guide looked really really slick? Feel free to swap the word "sick" for "slick" if you're under 30.
I'm not saying cable boxes are difficult to use but they are not as intuitive as they could be and they can be quite clunky at times. For instance, using the remote driven cursor to input names of movies is pretty archaic. I think when Jobs said he " had cracked" this whole TV thing he was talking about bringing the simplicity and elegance of ATV to include controlling all functions (program guide, DVR, input methods) to already existing TV's.
Meanwhile, I've taken control away from the cable companies by axing them altogether and supporting my favorite shows in other ways.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I understand. But "I" is extraordinarily subjective. Your list will differ from mine (and does). Our lists will differ from the next guy. Etc.
Somebody(s) does watch some of those "crap" channels "we" never watch as eyeballs are key to motivating companies to pay for ads on those channels. If those "crap" channels were universally ignored (as in, nobody watched them), there would be no ad revenues and the channel would go away.
And there is a "new revenue model" that is al-a-carte and commercial free. It's been that way in the iTunes Store for years now. What "we" don't like is the cost of that model. What "we" want is commercial free, just what "I" want at a much cheaper cost than what I pay now. The flaw in that dream is that the Studios that make the shows want to make more money- not less- in a "new model". The cable company that monopolize the pipes through which the shows flow want to make more money- not less- in a "new model". Apple is trying to figure out how to plug themselves in and make more money- not less- from this industry too.
A "new revenue model" will need to accomplish all that. If it doesn't there's only 2 scenarios:
- Quality of new programming must fall (as the money won't be there to maintain the quality of what we get in the current model).
- Somebody in the "new revenue chain" must make up the difference. That won't be the cable company who owns the pipe. It won't be Apple. Who's left?
By the way, we already have an implementation of #1 where the revenue flow from us consumers to producers is significantly less than the "old model". That's sites like youtube. That's the quality of programming we get if we want to pay a fraction of what we pay now, let Apple plug in a get an Apple-sized cut, etc.
We keep foolishly believing that it's our cable bill total divided by the number of channels we get. We keep thinking we want that math applied to the number of channels we would want al-a-carte. And that's how we get misconceptions like it should be $10/month instead of the $100+ I'm paying now. But if we all got that wish, we would be taking 90% of the money out of the revenue stream.
Our cable company (who is likely also our broadband provider) is obligated to maximize profits. Thus, they'll make up for the losses in cable revenue by making broadband more expensive. If you are in the U.S., where you going to go if they do that? If you happen to be lucky enough to be in a market with a second broadband provider (and that would make you relatively lucky), chances are high that they also are in the video-subscription business. So much like Verizon or AT&T raising rates for cellular service is quickly followed by the other doing the same...
Apple wants to make money not lose it. So however they insert themselves is going to involve taking a bite out of the available revenue flow from us before some portion of that gets to the Studios.
So either the artists (the Studios) who make the stuff take a huge hit to revenues- which means they can't pay their people or justify the huge risks of gambling on new shows- or we have to cough up the difference. If not the latter, then YouTube is a good proxy for what that future looks like- cheap, homemade programming that won't have many names in the credits at the end (because there's no money to pay for those professionals who's names stream by at the end of the programming we love via the current model).
Last edited:
Trojan horse.This is all so wrong...
I want a box that helps me CUT THE CORD with cable companies, not a box that keeps me with them!!!
Just for your dry cleaner: "a la carte!"
For me, $150/month is insane. I pay half that for 50MBit/sec plus phone and basic cable. You have more cable channels than you can count. Nice. How many of them do you watch? I have basic cable with about 50 channels. I can count on one hand the ones we actually watch - but hey - I pay only $25 for the cable part. Still, I pay for 45 channels I never ever watch. I assume there are more people who - unlike me - probably watch around 20 channels, but I doubt that many people are beyond that. Also, the cable companies go towards pay-per-view and that is just something where they are overlapping with iTunes, Amazon movies, Zune, and many others, but that is just a side point. Mainly, I don't want to pay for things I don't need but I and many others are forced to if we want to see the 5-20 channels we want to see. The "bundle" is the gate keeper.
I'm sure you can also ax the billion dollar a year toilet paper cartel and use leaves.
Bingo - gotta get a foothold and a subscriber base before changing everything, just like with how they revolutionized buying music.
Hahahaha. Nice one, buddy.
I don't watch the vast majority of those channels but it gives me warm fuzzy feelings just knowing they are there.
Seriously though, I think <insert the dreaded term> would be great but I simply don't see it happening and I think the current model is, all things considered, a decent value.
I was referring to the cable companies' aversion to giving up control and how I took it back in my own way. I don't have to buy one kind of toilet paper through a storefront I also have to rent and have it bundled with stuff I don't need or want.I'm sure you can also ax the billion dollar a year toilet paper cartel and use leaves.
Do you not realize that this is what they've been doing and it's failing? Perhaps your other ideas have some merit, but I'm guessing it's cost prohibitive (they still need to keep profits up).
This does make sense, but the issue at hand is the cable companies (i.e. the middleman) are doing nothing but getting ad buyers and delivering the content but are getting a huge slice of the pie.
A company like Apple or Google would be just as effective in ad purchasing and delivery for a fraction of the cost, with less limitations or relying on an old-school wired technology grid.
It's akin to the music industry shakeout. The system is bloated and something new needs to come in and cut the inefficiencies out for the benefit of content providers and consumers in a way that makes money and also gives the consumer choices, where their choices are limited now.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If most people cut the cord like you did, 2 things would happen:
- Broadband prices would be increased (because the owner of the pipes is not going to lose money on your maneuver if the crowd follows). They'll use terms like "higher bandwidth users" etc to implement ever-tightening tiers. Sound familiar?
- Content prodution could get crushed unless significant money lost in the "new model" is made up for somewhere else. Hint: we're the "somewhere else" source.
Enjoy the cord-cut world while you can. If the crowd follows so that real pain is felt by those who profit from things "as is", they'll just make it less desirable for the cord-cutters (such as through increased broadband cost). Why do you think that for most people, the same company that is in the video-subscription business is also in the broadband business (and probably is the only game in town for broadband)? Broadband is a very nice subscription revenue stream business. Why aren't there a lot of competitors in every town?
While you have the Comcasts, Time Warners, Verizons, AT&T, etc in place as broadband toll masters, there is NO scenario where someone like Apple can sweep in with some "new model" that will involve us getting everything we want at much cheaper prices when that "everything" must flow through pipes owned by those cable giants. Best we get is that it can work now, while the minority is going the cord-cutting route. As soon as there is real pain, it's over.
The missing rumor for this dream is some way for Apple to link us all directly to iCloud so that we can bypass those middlemen. Until that rumor is flying and seemingly impending, those cable companies are never going to let a third party eat their lunch when that third party's solution must flow through the cable company's pipes. Never. Never. Never.
Last edited:
Agreed, what pisses me off is that my building management forces cable on me. No matter what I do, TWC gets $40/month from me. Makes me so mad!!
----------
That's why we need legislation separating the content from the delivery. This should apply to the wireless data providers as well.
Hahahaha. Nice one, buddy.
I don't watch the vast majority of those channels but it gives me warm fuzzy feelings just knowing they are there.
Seriously though, I think <insert the dreaded term> would be great but I simply don't see it happening and I think the current model is, all things considered, a decent value.
See, I moved over to the US from Germany. Digital Satelite is free there.* If you want to have certain stations which don't make their money with commercials, you buy a key for them. That's it. Cable is at a way lower price and the quality is HD as it is here. Especially, looking at XM radio and DVD-S / DVB-T, in the United States, you are just a cash cow as customer. A lot of middle men (cable providers) just get insanely rich on your back - and the lobby of them made sure that XM radio isn't free and that you cannot put up a satellite dish without paying for it.
*Don't get me wrong, there are expensive premium services in Germany as well, but if you can put up a dish (building code might prohibit) or you get terrestrial signal (in most areas you do), you get more than basic cable here which are financed by something like a head tax about $30/month and household to finance the equivalent of PBS (and their internet services, etc).
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
First, Apple is not exactly known for significantly undercutting costs at the expense of profit. For example, the eBook deal involves them pitching the book companies on a model where we consumers would pay more for Ebooks, not a "fraction of the cost."
Second, a common gripe about Apple iAd program is that it is relatively expensive vs. other options, not a "fraction of the cost". Apple is generally a premium-oriented company. I can't think of any example where Apple steps in and costs to us consumers are cut to a fraction. Can you?
Third, broadband depends on the "old-school wired technology grid". So even if the above is overcome in Apples and our favor, Apple's solution will still depend on flowing content through pipes owned by cable companies who like things "as is". They will not just roll over and let Apple take their lucrative cable subscription businesses. It's nothing like the music industry & iTunes because the distribution of music had no such absolute dependency on the music industry.
A replacement TV-subscription model must flow through pipes owned by those that make a lot of money from the existing TV-subscription model. We can't readily bypass them as our choices for broadband (in the U.S. anyway) are usually 1, maybe 2 sources (both of which are typically in the TV-subscription business).
Don't get me wrong. I love the dream of it all. But it's just a dream. If we want it to come to pass, we need more than just what people typically reference in the dream. Specifically:
- A "bypass the broadband middleman" solution from Apple linking consumers of this new replacement solution directly to iCloud (no Comcast, AT&T, etc in the middle). This is some new kind of national or global broadband (almost certainly not 3G or LTE) or maybe Apple buying someone like DISH network and repurposing it as a direct link of iCloud & individual consumers.
- If we are going to pay substantially less for television and Apple is going to take an Apple cut, we need a big innovation in terms of how the Studios that make the shows are going to be able to continue to make at least as much money as they make now. Else quality of programming will have to fall to match the "cheaper" model we apparently covet
- If we also want commercial-free programming, we're pulling about $54 per household PER MONTH out of the revenue stream. That's $54/month paid for by someone else (companies who run the commercials) which goes toward the production of shows we want to watch. If the new model is just Apple & us, which one is going to make up for that $54/month? (and obviously, the oft-stated wish for a cable bill of $10 or $20 per month for "just what I want to watch" is far from $54/month).
We consumers overlook all that because we only see it from our point of view. We see "greedy cable companies" forcing channels on us we never watch. We hate commercials and just want the programming. Yet, we've had commercial free al-a-carte for years in the iTunes store. What's wrong with that? We don't want to pay the price for commercial free, al-a-carte.
What we want to do is: A) my cable bill is $100, B) I get 200 channels, C) Each channel is worth 50 cents (per A/B), D) I only watch 10 channels. E) 10 channels times 50 cents = $5. F) My new bill should be $5/month.
Then, we just ignore the concept that if everyone suddenly cuts that bill by 95%, there's no way there's enough money left in that pipe to keep the new programming flowing. We ignore that replacing the "greedy middlemen" named Comcast with Apple does not mean we are swapping a money-hungry middlemen for a money-indifferent middleman. And we ignore the ramifications of the switch such as recognizing that the cable industry is generally the broadband industry on which Apple's solution will absolutely depend.
The key to the "new model" is to show all parties how they are going to benefit. For us, that's probably close to the stated dream wants. For the various companies in the chain, we have to show them how they are going to make more money after letting Apple into the mix as well. How they all make more money and we spend a fraction of what we spend now is the fundamental conundrum. It will likely take a genuinely "magical" product from Apple to actually solve that so that both sides get what they want.
----------
The Gov will never do this. When you get a chance look up major campaign contributors to both political parties and notice familiar names and PACs relevant to this topic.
AT&T was the last to learn that lesson that dominant telecommunications companies must butter the political bread. Now the money flows and the politicians happily look the other way (though some will give it some lip service so they look good for the sound bites).
But I'll hope with you. It would be great if our Gov was actually working for the people in such matters. Capitalism is a great system where real competition is able to do its thing.
Last edited:
What happens? MTV 4, 5, 6, and 7 are no more. All the garbage gets weeded out. Have you ever had cable? It's a mess and the cost per actual decent channel is absurdly high. Let the garbage go by the wayside.
I realize my taste are going to be different from other people, but if we all paid per channel, the stuff that is actually, statistically popular would stick around. I feel this is a more fair arena, and if I lost a channel or two I liked at least I know I wouldn't be paying for 473 channels I hate.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The most popular channels would then be priced at something like $10-$30 EACH per month, as the pricing goal would be to maintain the revenue flow by those who control the pricing.
The loss of MTV 4, 5, 6, 7, etc means that the commercials run on those channels we don't have to watch won't be sold anymore to the companies that pay for them. That revenue won't be in the pipe to pay for the quality and volume of program that we like from the Studios. So that money will need to be made up elsewhere, or the quality of the programming will need to fall.
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. It would be better to have 1000 channels we never watch packed full of commercials than to cut it down to 10-30 channels that we actually watch and us having to make up the subsidy money by paying up for those 10-30 channels.
Set up your "FAV" channel list in your on-screen guide and block all channels you never watch. This yields exactly what some want without killing the subsidy revenue golden goose. It will look like al-a-carte subscription while still leveraging corporations paying for commercials on those channels you never watch.
And be careful what you wish for.
Last edited: