The only way that I can see this having mass market appeal is ifpartners with Dish or DirectTV. Local station content would be too difficult to manage otherwise IMHO, and off-air HD reception is not a viable option for a vast portion of the population.
You do know that only 58.4% of all American homes have cable, right?
I'm afraid the statistics don't agree with you. According to redherring.com and other statistics that I found,You do know that only 58.4% of all American homes have cable, right?
You do know that if you have DirectTV, you get local channels in HD by putting an over-the-air antenna on your roof, right?
You do know that Apple could include a cable card slot or slots to eliminate the need for a cable company box, and that cable companies are required to provide cable cards to consumers by law, right? Then you get the same exact channels you get today with cable (minus on demand stuff).
I'm afraid the statistics don't agree with you. According to redherring.com and other statistics that I found,
"At the end of 2007, there were 67.9 million U.S. cable TV households, or about 67 percent of the pay-TV market."
That would mean that the pay-tv market (cable, satellite, etc). is about 101 million households. Nielson says that their will be 112.8 million total tv households in the US by Jan 1, 2008. Therefore, about 101/112.8 = 89% of US tv households have pay tv of some kind, and over 60% of US tv households have cable.
EDIT: Sorry, ignore my post. Apparently you edited after I read it and before I posted, or else I misread it from the start. Sorry!
No, the original post said "most US households do not have cable" or something to that effect (at least I think it did). That is what I was refuting.WOW talk about symantics!!! 58.4%, 60% Your right, the numbers aren't the same.
Now we're gonna defend websites that post statistics on which statistic website is right and which one is not. Man, talk about having nothing to do.
This obviously wouldn't work. I mean, look how unhappy the people in the patent drawing are.![]()
DVR is a stop-gap solution because you're recording scheduled video content. Re-recording something that's already been digitized simply doesn't make sense in this day and age, at least not to a forward-thinking company like Apple. What DOES make sense is something like Hulu, a service that offers you content when you want it (not scheduled content) but is also still paid by advertising.
For the foreseeable future, the media companies get their money from "premieres" or "new episodes" of various shows, as well as for the in-theater movies. Yes, there are residuals, and some ongoing income, but the studios look to the initial showing of a particular show/movie to make their money back.
Who would have been watching "The Sopranos" if it was only available via a download? The promotional engine and "watercooler talk" is what turned me onto the show, and I couldn't wait for the next episode to air. Hard to imagine that show would have made even half of the money it did if it was only availble "on demand".
P.s. - these patents need a new illustrator. One that's not on drugs. Or at least one that's on better drugs, not acid.
WOW talk about symantics!!! 58.4%, 60% Your right, the numbers aren't the same.
Now we're gonna defend websites that post statistics on which statistic website is right and which one is not. Man, talk about having nothing to do.
The idea that you have to manually record the content locally in order to access it later, however, is -- pardon the phrase -- so 20th century.
You do know that only 58.4% of all American homes have cable, right?
You do know that if you have DirectTV, you get local channels in HD by putting an over-the-air antenna on your roof, right?
You do know that Apple could include a cable card slot or slots to eliminate the need for a cable company box, and that cable companies are required to provide cable cards to consumers by law, right? Then you get the same exact channels you get today with cable (minus on demand stuff).
The only way that I can see this having mass market appeal is ifpartners with Dish or DirectTV. Local station content would be too difficult to manage otherwise IMHO, and off-air HD reception is not a viable option for a vast portion of the population.
According to the stats I quoted then yes, about 30% have some sort of pay service that is not cable. I know quite a few people that have satellite (me included). Unfortunately there isn't any viable cable company in my area IMHO (Cox doesn't count). I'm between Austin and Round Rock, both of which have Time Warner, and I can't get it.You are correct in that it did say that originally.
I find it difficult to to believe that many people have satellite and I can find no stats to either prove or refute your claim. Also I'd bet there a good number of people that have both. Do you really think 30% of the country has DirectTV or Dish?
hmm, that's funny. Seems like apple is committed to the concept of itunes being your source for content. Having an apple DVR would fly in the face of that strategy.
I would find it hard for any of this to catch on. Unless, like Oilbrnr said, they partner up with someone.
Tivo, which is to DVR as Kleenex is to tissue, only has 30-40% market share, which is down from previous years. They are being outmaneuvered by cable companies creating their own all-in-one DVR/set top boxes. A DVR capable Apple TV would likely share the same fate. Why have two boxes when you can have one?
This has been my dream. Fingers crossed.