Sidebar Sidebar
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

HobeSoundDarryl said:
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.
Click to expand...


I do understand your point. But I think the revolution away from cable has already begun. Netflix is producing original content. Hulu has some very popular shows the day after they air. Even iTunes has their "season pass" on some of the best shows out there, which allows me to view the show almost instantly after it airs, and I'm only paying for the show I want. Plus with season pass I can load it onto my phone, iPad, etc and take it with me, data free if I need to.

I haven't had cable for years, so while your point is very much valid, it does not concern me personally. If I could buy per channel I would consider it. But I think that it will take someone like Apple or Google to implement an ala carte service. I know it will be a bloody fight, but I look forward to the day when the cable companies are knocked down a peg. They charge you an ever increasing amount of money for hundreds of useless channels and then you still have to watch a ton of commercials. Yeah Hulu has commercials, but it's an average of 3 per show, if any at all, as opposed to the 5-6 per commercial break on cable.

Where I live our choices for cable are Verizon and Comcast. Both companies make millions without their TV business. I won't cry for them.
 
Sounds infinitely more likely than an actual Apple TV.

Still has just as many complicated and stubborn hurdles, though, so it's still unlikely in my mind.
 
b166er said:
I do understand your point. But I think the revolution away from cable has already begun. Netflix is producing original content. Hulu has some very popular shows the day after they air. Even iTunes has their "season pass" on some of the best shows out there, which allows me to view the show almost instantly after it airs, and I'm only paying for the show I want. Plus with season pass I can load it onto my phone, iPad, etc and take it with me, data free if I need to.

I haven't had cable for years, so while your point is very much valid, it does not concern me personally. If I could buy per channel I would consider it. But I think that it will take someone like Apple or Google to implement an ala carte service. I know it will be a bloody fight, but I look forward to the day when the cable companies are knocked down a peg. They charge you an ever increasing amount of money for hundreds of useless channels and then you still have to watch a ton of commercials. Yeah Hulu has commercials, but it's an average of 3 per show, if any at all, as opposed to the 5-6 per commercial break on cable.

Where I live our choices for cable are Verizon and Comcast. Both companies make millions without their TV business. I won't cry for them.
Click to expand...

Again, who feeds you your broadband, Verizon or Comcast? Right now, they are not feeling enough pain from consumers like you to flex their muscles. If the crowd moves on this "revolution," your broadband bill will go up. They control the broadband and they like their cable revenues. They have obligations to their shareholders to maximize profits. If a profitable cable model starts feeling the pain of many others following your lead, they'll flex their broadband control muscles to make up the difference.

Your "beating them" only works for now. It won't last unless the crowd doesn't follow your lead. They won't be "beat" en masse unless Apple finds a way to completely bypass them in linking us to iCloud so they have no muscle to flex. That "bypass the broadband middlemen" is one of the big things that is missing from this dream.

Enjoy it while you can.
 
Carniphage said:
...

Comcast have to buy and install this ton of hardware. They have to have fleets of engineers. Apple box subscribers would need none of that.
...
Click to expand...

I think you missed the part of the rumor where Apple wants the support of the hardware to be with the Cable Cos.
 
Even Apple could never get me to go back(wards) to cable TV. The internet has everything I want. Just give me Google Fiber!!! :cool:
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Again, who feeds you your broadband, Verizon or Comcast? Right now, they are not feeling enough pain from consumers like you to flex their muscles. If the crowd moves on this "revolution," your broadband bill will go up. They control the broadband and they like their cable revenues. They have obligations to their shareholders to maximize profits. If a profitable cable model starts feeling the pain of many others following your lead, they'll flex their broadband control muscles to make up the difference.

Your "beating them" only works for now. It won't last unless the crowd doesn't follow your lead. They won't be "beat" en masse unless Apple finds a way to completely bypass them in linking us to iCloud so they have no muscle to flex. That "bypass the broadband middlemen" is one of the big things that is missing from this dream.

Enjoy it while you can.
Click to expand...

You act as if there are no other options. They can only raise the price so much before they destroy their customer base. Your argument fails to recogize that there are other sources for the same content, including satellite. And there are usually at least 2 copper lines coming to most homes and sometimes fiber as well.
 
gregwyattjr said:
One box to stream everything from your computer and to display your iPad's screen and to view live television? This will change everything.
Click to expand...

Not really... all it does is it puts the three into on and I mean it's new but not a definitely game changer.
 
Geckotek said:
You act as if there are no other options. They can only raise the price so much before they destroy their customer base. Your argument fails to recogize that there are other sources for the same content, including satellite. And there are usually at least 2 copper lines coming to most homes and sometimes fiber as well.
Click to expand...

Where do you live? I live in one of the richest counties in the U.S. I feel reasonably lucky to have 2 choices for broadband. My options are Comcast or AT&T. Both have cable-like TV subscription models that they would want to protect. Apple's solution can only work for me through their pipes.

Sure, there is satt broadband options too but I don't count them given how expensive that is- especially if it is going to be high-bandwidth demand associated with flowing lots of video through that pipe.

You may be fortuntate to live somewhere where you have more than 2 choices for broadband. However, many- if not most- people have 1 (ONE) choice for broadband (not counting Satt broadband).

And yes, some people might be able to connect via fiber but that is generally owned by the very same players who are also in the television subscription business. Yes, Google has a little experimental project in Kansas City but the vast majority of Americans can't subscribe to Google fiber (unless we all move to Kansas City).

And yes, there is a limit to how high they could raise broadband pricing before people would stop subscribing to broadband. My guess is that it would be about what those cable cord cutters were paying for cable + broadband before they cut the cord... maybe a bit more since we would so want Apple's "better solution".

I foresee no scenario where someone like Comcast would leave broadband pricing about as is but let Apple take their lucrative TV subscription business profits when Apple's replacement must flow through Comcast's pipes. Not only does that make no business sense, they have obligations to shareholders- just like Apple- to maximize profits. They can't meet those obligations by just rolling over and letting Apple take those revenues. If you were Comcast, why would you let Apple take that business?
 
Last edited:
macUser2007 said:
I think you missed the part of the rumor where Apple wants the support of the hardware to be with the Cable Cos.
Click to expand...

I don't buy the WSJ take on the story. They are not thinking radically enough.

I think Apple will create an alternative distribution mechanism which would improve the user experience while reducing the installation cost dramatically.

To work in the US market, Apple certainly needs the Cable companies.
The really big question is what commercial incentives is there for the Cable companies to shift to this alternate distribution technology.

The possibilities are.
1) Reduced infrastructure costs - fewer engineers - less hardware to support
2) Better subscription returns - through expanding to non cabled consumers
3) Better advertising returns - through targeted ads.
 
Lame

I haven't watched live tv for two years, I want to watch what I want when I want with no hassle to have to record things.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Where do you live? I live in one of the richest counties in the U.S. I feel reasonably lucky to have 2 choices for broadband. My options are Comcast or AT&T. Both have cable-like TV subscription models that they would want to protect. Apple's solution can only work for me through their pipes.

Sure, there is satt broadband options too but I don't count them given how expensive that is- especially if it is going to be high-bandwidth demand associated with flowing lots of video through that pipe.

You may be fortuntate to live somewhere where you have more than 2 choices for broadband. However, many- if not most- people have 1 (ONE) choice for broadband (not counting Satt broadband).

And yes, some people might be able to connect via fiber but that is generally owned by the very same players who are also in the television subscription business. Yes, Google has a little experimental project in Kansas City but the vast majority of Americans can't subscribe to Google fiber (unless we all move to Kansas City).

And yes, there is a limit to how high they could raise broadband pricing before people would stop subscribing to broadband. My guess is that it would be about what those cable cord cutters were paying for cable + broadband before they cut the cord... maybe a bit more since we would so want Apple's "better solution".

I foresee no scenario where someone like Comcast would leave broadband pricing about as is but let Apple take their lucrative TV subscription business profits when Apple's replacement must flow through Comcast's pipes. Not only does that make no business sense, they have obligations to shareholders- just like Apple- to maximize profits. They can't meet those obligations by just rolling over and letting Apple take those revenues. If you were Comcast, why would you let Apple take that business?
Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring that most people around the US have copper from both cable and phone companies.
 
Geckotek said:
You seem to be ignoring that most people around the US have copper from both cable and phone companies.
Click to expand...

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.
 
extradryny said:
Well for now, if you like HD sports, you're tethered. Period.
Click to expand...

I don't care that much about HD, and ESPN.com shows all sports for free.

----------
Nungster said:
On the back of your television set is a connector where you can connect a coax from an antenna or cable service. Why would the aTV need to do this?
Click to expand...

Recording. Also, the TV tuners usually aren't that smart.
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
If most people cut the cord like you did, 2 things would happen:
  1. 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?
  2. 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.
Click to expand...

the way it works now is that it takes a miracle from God to get a pilot show approved and a bigger miracle to get the pilot turned into a season.

in a new model you can just sell the pilot online for a niche fan base. no need to go through the expensive prime time TV slot. the current system is set up to make a new show expensive to produce so that only a few shows that appeal to a lot of people make it.

look what amazon did with ebooks. everyday people are writing books, self publishing and making money. google did something close with youtube but someone needs to take it a step further
 
Apple Set Top Box

They would need a real set top box...
The Apple TV is not a STB.
They need to support Cable Card, DVR functionality with multiple streams in multiple formats.....

They need to sell the idea to the major cable operators.
They will need to beat Tivo, Google (General Instruments via Motorola Mobility) and Cisco (Scientific Atlanta) at price and performance to get the cable/satellite companies to even consider them.

No Apple STB anytime soon.
 
alent1234 said:
the way it works now is that it takes a miracle from God to get a pilot show approved and a bigger miracle to get the pilot turned into a season. in a new model you can just sell the pilot online for a niche fan base. no need to go through the expensive prime time TV slot. the current system is set up to make a new show expensive to produce so that only a few shows that appeal to a lot of people make it.
Click to expand...

Really? So the vision is that a bunch of people are going to put up some cash in advance of seeing a pilot and the first few episodes and that's how new shows are going to be funded... a kind of new program crowdfunding model?

It's a great idea and if it could work, that's how it would be done now. There would be more profit potential for the Studios (the content creators) if they could get their funding directly from the consumers. But they've never been able to pull that off.

The issue is that people don't want to put up the money for a show before they see if it's any good. Most here argue that the first few episodes of new shows should be free in the iTunes store so that people could see if they like the show enough to buy it. I haven't seen many arguments previously for putting up a bunch of money before we get to see a show.

Similarly, there's a lot of very popular (niche) shows that get canceled. Often their base tries to save them not by putting up the money for another season but by petitioning and letter writing. I can recall a few shows that were niche popular and canceled and then people trying to organize a money-raising campaign to keep them going (Star Trek: Enterprise is one I recall with certainty; I think Deadwood & Firefly might have gone that way too)... but the money that was needed never showed up at the levels necessary to save the show. The niche audience just didn't want it bad enough to put up the money for a show they already had sampled. I find it hard to imagine a niche audience is going to put up the money for a show they haven't seen yet.

Even here in this thread, the common theme of the dream seems to revolve around paying a lot less for television while still getting "everything I watch" with some also wanting "commercial free". You're the first I've seen- here- of someone wanting to fund an unseen program.

The way it works now is not too different than you describe. However, ANYONE who can come up with the money could fund their own new show and buy up a time slot wholesale to put it on the air. As long as you have the money to fund the production and buy the time, it will air (assuming it meets legal requirements). How many shows have launched that way? How many crowdfunded shows have launched that way? I'm not aware of any in 60+ years of television.
 
Last edited:
Dear Apple

Here's what I, the customer, would like:

An actual TV set with the functionality of the current Apple TV built in, as well as the ability to pay for live cable channels a la carte. No more hunting through 1000 channels I don't care about. No more mess of cords connecting my TV to the cable box, the DVD/Blu-Ray player, none of that junk.

Let me buy what I want: TV, movies, maybe games, whatever, with some iTunes muscle and AirPlay Mirroring backing it. I'd prefer to do so with a simple, elegant interface, the way Apple is known to do it. You may then feel free to charge my credit card.
 
What Apple or someone in the TV industry needs to do regarding set-top boxes is:

1)make them much smaller
2)make them a LOT cooler (temperature)
3)make them us a LOT LESS electricity
4)make the DVR functionality a LOT quicker/more responsive


On a side note, the tv industry should really be forced to provide a box for free. Selling me the "service" for $50+ a month and then having me choose "a box" for another fee should be illegal. Phone companies do not force me to use/rent phones from them. Neither do water companies or similar utilities.
 
driceman said:
Here's what I, the customer, would like:

An actual TV set with the functionality of the current Apple TV built in, as well as the ability to pay for live cable channels a la carte. No more hunting through 1000 channels I don't care about. No more mess of cords connecting my TV to the cable box, the DVD/Blu-Ray player, none of that junk.

Let me buy what I want: TV, movies, maybe games, whatever, with some iTunes muscle and AirPlay Mirroring backing it. I'd prefer to do so with a simple, elegant interface, the way Apple is known to do it. You may then feel free to charge my credit card.
Click to expand...

How much can Apple charge your credit card for that TV and how much for that al-a-carte service?
 
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…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back