Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
okay i know i am coming late to this, and i hope i am not regurgitating what others have already said, but given the positive response to the camera-ipod cable for storage of photos, i belive it will be here where apple will score - offering solutions with an inital niche appeal, which turn into mass frenzy (i.e. ipod is one :))) )
 
macidiot said:
Welll, your right, Paramount, or any other production company, doesn't care how it makes its money. They will essentially sell the rights to anyone that will pay them. But, a network which picks up a show would never allow a second simultaneous distribution. Unless I'm mistaken, the network has exclusive rights to a picked up show. They in fact pay for the creation(production) of said show. They basically own it. They'd never allow another avenue to watch it(first runs) unless they were taking a big cut themselves. Even then it would be doubtful. It would destroy their ad revenue.

Now after the show is cancelled its a different story. Apple, if it wanted to do old tv shows, could probably do it. I just think it would be a lot easier dealing with film, as there aren't things like syndication deals to deal with.

Of course, Apple could act like a network and compete directly and pick up shows itself. But thats a big cost and a big gamble.

You don't really understand rights. The networks own and distribute some of their shows (particularly the cable networks) and only distribute others. "The West Wing" is owned by Warner Brothers and distributed by NBC Universal, and Bravo has exclusive syndication rights. Warner Home Video (or some other WB entity) has the DVD rights.

Apple wouldn't necessarily be more likely to get first run episodes of "ER" than reruns, and wouldn't necessarily be more likely to get episodes of a cancelled show than one that isn't cancelled.

Shows allow simultaneous broadcasting on the various cable carriers' on-demand services. Comcast Ondemand has Food TV, Comedy Central and other programming available for free and episodes of Showtime and HBO original shows the same week they come out.

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't make it up as you go.
 
not sure apple would be bothered if it was lossmaking - they could still turn it round easily.. and apple owning tivo also good news for them in the longer run for this kinda product as tivo own pretty much all the patents possible for DVRs - Sky+ pays them to use patented hardware and software designs etc... so it's goin to be a good investment anyway you look at it!
 
DTphonehome said:
Hey! That's a ReplayTV! Cheater!

Back would probably look better if Apple designed it, not SonicBlue, hotshot ! ;)
Hey I did this a while back, and didn't I say that it was fake before? Someone gave me the images and told me 'go have fun', so that's what I did, and I'm sure Apple would come out with something much better....

...as for that CableCard....the slot is invisible :D
 
Unless the Apple DVR has two tuners (record 2 shows simultaneously), has HD in AND out (DVI connector preferred, though component would be acceptable), works with my local Time-Warner cable service, has an option for an external firewire hard drive, supports surround sound in digital audio, and matches the “Tivo to go” function for burning TV shows onto a DVD, I’ll keep my current Scientific-Atlanta DVR.

A tall order, I suppose.
 
Aeolius said:
Unless the Apple DVR has two tuners (record 2 shows simultaneously), has HD in AND out (DVI connector preferred, though component would be acceptable), works with my local Time-Warner cable service, has an option for an external firewire hard drive, supports surround sound in digital audio, and matches the “Tivo to go” function for burning TV shows onto a DVD, I’ll keep my current Scientific-Atlanta DVR.

A tall order, I suppose.

Not too tall an order at all, actually. For cable compatibility, it would likely have a CableCARD slot, allowing the box itself to decode the channels you subscribe to and record them. The biggest issue you'd have is HD in from other sources. DVI signals aren't currently recordable (too much bandwidth), and component, although recordable, is not a consumer product, is analog and wouldn't likely support surround sound with Component video. Google "W-VHS" for info on component video recording. The best bet for true HD in functionality would be firewire, but unfortunately Dish, Directv and Voom don't support firewire, and don't appear eager to want to.
 
Aeolius said:
Unless the Apple DVR has two tuners (record 2 shows simultaneously), has HD in AND out (DVI connector preferred, though component would be acceptable), works with my local Time-Warner cable service, has an option for an external firewire hard drive, supports surround sound in digital audio, and matches the “Tivo to go” function for burning TV shows onto a DVD, I’ll keep my current Scientific-Atlanta DVR.

A tall order, I suppose.

Not as tall as you might think (if this 'acquisition' happens)

At CES in January, TiVo announced a CableCard DVR with many of the features your looking for (2 tuners, HD support, 5.1 support, TiVoToGo). [Being that it's CableCard-based it will work natively, without a cable box, but you'll need 1 CableCard for each tuner]

Now, some of the things on your wishlist that aren't there on the TiVo box (external hard drive?) could be added-on if a certain company from Cupertino, CA were to purchase TiVo. :)

It should be noted though that TiVo doesn't have the greatest track record with its 'announced' products. They had announced a standalone HD recorder at CES in 2003, but that became vaporware.

Nevertheless, your wishlist (and mine) has been acknowledged. ;)
 
Regarding the comparisons between DVR and mp3 players- I think it's important to note that Apple practically made the mp3 player market, and could potentially make the home media network market (or whatever you want to call it.) Apple buying Tivo would be more than about set top boxes, it would be to attack the digital media hub concept that has been a popular buzzword but not a significant consumer product.

To really look at what Apple could do, you have to abstract beyond what is currently available, and beyond even supercharged versions of today's hardware. You have to forget about everything, and start from scratch. That's how Apple has designed its best products- products that are go against the grain but are remarkably obvious in hindsight.

You've got media producers (TV and movie production houses), and you've got media consumers. You've also got existing distribution channels but we shouldn't assume too much of them, such as how iTunes bypasses the physical distribution chain.

The next thing would be to figure out exactly what extra end-user benefits (and not necessarily features) that a 'digital hub' would offer over what exists today-

-'Time-shifting' (which as hanumang points out doesn't have too much penetration)
-Increased selection (may not actually be the case since VOD and services like NetFlix offer probably 99% of what people want)
-Portability (watch on multiple TV's or computers, Tivo iPod, burn stuff to DVD, etc.)

To be honest, I have always felt that the whole 'digital hub' concept was a solution in search of a problem. There are some nice features that it enables, but currently at significant cost and effort to the consumer. The idea of having a Windows XP computer sitting next to my TV running things gives me a headache.

The main thing that intrigued me with this whole Tivo rumor (which seems to be bunk anyways) was the prospect of a Video iPod that would actually solve the problem that Steven Jobs says limits the appeal of portable media players- content. It would also address the typical habits of video viewing (watch most content only once) vs. music listening (listen to most music multiple times).
 
Porchland said:
You don't really understand rights. The networks own and distribute some of their shows (particularly the cable networks) and only distribute others. "The West Wing" is owned by Warner Brothers and distributed by NBC Universal, and Bravo has exclusive syndication rights. Warner Home Video (or some other WB entity) has the DVD rights.

Apple wouldn't necessarily be more likely to get first run episodes of "ER" than reruns, and wouldn't necessarily be more likely to get episodes of a cancelled show than one that isn't cancelled.

Shows allow simultaneous broadcasting on the various cable carriers' on-demand services. Comcast Ondemand has Food TV, Comedy Central and other programming available for free and episodes of Showtime and HBO original shows the same week they come out.

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't make it up as you go.

Actually, while no expert, I do know more than most, having worked in entertainment for years, though mostly on the film side. Thing is, rights with tv shows can be very complicated as you alluded to. Which is why I chose to not get into it. I just chose a likely situation with major networks to illustrate the difficulties involved. And as I said in my previous post, its a reason why I think film would be easier to deal with. Maybe it didn't come across clearly, but it was pretty late when I wrote that posting.

Getting back to the original topic... its all idle speculation at this point, Apple hasn't bought Tivo or announced any sort of VOD store, so don't get your panties in a bunch.
 
hanumang said:
Yeah, I understand the point you are trying to make but my major point was that portable audio has a viable history. Since the walkmen, we've taken our tunes with us.

On the flipside, watchmen - and portable video devices of that ilk - just never caught on. That's not to say that they NEVER will but we do enjoy music and movies/tv differently. Let's call it a lifestyle issue.
Others have addressed your other points... but to these ones...

TiVo is not a portable video device. What makes you think Apple buying TiVo would be to make a "watchman"?

(I do think there is a market for a watchman, but it is much more niche. A home system to let you watch what you want, when you want it - that could be big)
 
GregA said:
TiVo is not a portable video device. What makes you think Apple buying TiVo would be to make a "watchman"?

(I do think there is a market for a watchman, but it is much more niche. A home system to let you watch what you want, when you want it - that could be big)

My bad, I didn't mean to suggest that is what Apple would be doing, my comments were considering that a lot of the excitement from those here on the boards is the dream of a TiVoPod.

While I would love to see something like that, I agree that it would be a niche product.
 
hanumang said:
my comments were considering that a lot of the excitement from those here on the boards is the dream of a TiVoPod.
Cool, I misunderstood you.

I do think that if Apple releases a PVR (non portable!), or other set top box, that perhaps the name "iPod Home" will carry more goodwill and recognition than "iMac Home" (and if it can't run normal Mac software, the "Mac" name is even less useful").
 
narco said:
This would be awesome.

If Apple bought eyeTV and TiVo, used all of eyeTV software and completely abandon TiVo (just use their name for brand recognition) then I'd buy. I hate monthly fees, and I'm sure 99% of the earth's population do as well.

Make it one unit that you buy for a couple or few hundred dollars, then it's free to pause, rewind and do all that other stuff. You can look up schedules and so-on through the internet via-wireless connection.

Total awesomeness.

Fishes,
narco.
Lots of people pay fees for satelite radio, I'm not one of them, too many bills. I'd love a free DVR, but it won't happen.
 
Cooknn said:
:confused:

In my part of the country Comcast offers 11 HD Channels - and that is only if you buy the Premium package that includes all the pay channels ie. HBO, Cinemax, Showtime and Starz.

Last night I went through the IPG for the upcoming week while looking at the HD channels. I could not find anything I wanted to record. Sad :mad:
I'm waiting 4 to 6 years to buy a LCD HD set. only 10% of channels are in HD. Buying a HD set is nuts!
 
Maestro64 said:
As a person who worked for the company who designed Directv's Digital Compression system and vary familiar with their operations. I can tell you this much, with Directv you get a much higher quality video. Over 90% of their content is digital start to finish. Because it all digital the data you store on you DVR/Tivo is going to be much better quality then any other system out there.

Most, including Comcasts system digitize the analog video with all its distortions before it hits the hard drive. In the case of Directv system they store the digital stream coming in from the satellite. Only when you play it does it convert it to analog video to display on your TV. The other thing to remember with Comcast most all there content is analog. They take their analog feeds then digitize them and send it to your house. So you paying extra for what they call digital service, thinking you are getting better quality when in fact you are not. They got you to pay extra money to allow them to upgrade equipment so they can send more content down the same cables to your house.

I have both Comcast and Directv, only because Comcast forces you to have at least basic service in order to get internet access for a reasonable price. I can tell you this much, for what I pay for Directv is far less then Comcast for the content and the quality is far better. I have compared the same shows side by side and Directv is far better even better then Comcast Digital which I happen to have due to a screw-up on Comcast part. I moved in last year and the pervious owners had the service and when I got Internet access they gave it to me free trying to get me to buy there entire package for over $100 month. Well over a year later I am still paying for basic and getting it all.

The moral to the story, as we all know the less times you convert a signal from analog to digital and back again the better the quality will be in the end. Directv and its Tivo does exactly that, there content if fully digital until it hits the video out of your set top box or DVR.[/QUOTE

Comcast is my Internet provider & I don't have TV from them, I have Dishnetwork. You need to call Comcast & drop tv.
 
paulsecic said:
Comcast is my Internet provider & I don't have TV from them, I have Dishnetwork. You need to call Comcast & drop tv.

Current I think that the price for Digital Cable is just too expensive for the amount of actual content available. Not looking forward to the forced government changeover in 2007. I prefer my basic cable at less than $10.
 
Porchland said:
You don't really understand rights. The networks own and distribute some of their shows (particularly the cable networks) and only distribute others. "The West Wing" is owned by Warner Brothers and distributed by NBC Universal, and Bravo has exclusive syndication rights. Warner Home Video (or some other WB entity) has the DVD rights.
If you don't know what you're talking about, don't make it up as you go.


Just for the record, Bravo is owned by NBC Universal. "The West Wing" has been so good to NBC that they locked in the syndication rights on cable to their sister cable network Bravo, even though the show is actually made by Warner Bros. Television. You can see similar stuff with shows produced by Twentieth Television. For example, "The X-Files" was produced by Twentieth Television and originally aired on the Fox Network. Broadcast syndication was locked in with affiliate Fox television stations and Fox's own F/X Network on cable got part of the cable rights. "Married w/Children was produced by Columbia/Sony but was strongly associated with Fox Network and thus it stays part of the F/X Network's programming to this day. "Buffy" was done by Twentieth Television but aired first on the WB Network (and later UPN), but was syndicated to Fox Network affiliate stations and continues to air on F/X.

"Battlestar Galactica" was made originally by MCA/Universal Television. Universal later acquired the SciFi Network. The new series was launched on SciFi but since the merger of NBC and Universal, the big wigs at NBC management have liked the show so much that they've actually rebroadcasted the miniseries on NBC proper.

My point is, distribution is flexible. You must remember that almost all the media conglomerates do not act in concert; in fact, most of the various divisions act to spite one another. Time Warner has never flexed its muscles like it should because of that, and when AOL's accounting scandals drove the stock into the ground, the AOL management was deposed (who had the best chance of making Time Warner act as one) and the old Time Warner flunkies gained control again. The only media firm that actually benefits from synergy at this point are Sony's holdings. After years of throwing cash at Columbia (Sony) Pictures, it (with Spider-Man) is a financial success and Sony won't spin it off because they want the media library as clout for establishing new media standards that they hold an interest in such as Blu-Ray. That was a chief reason why Sony just acquired MGM...

So if Jobs can wow the media big wigs at the profits that an Apple iMovie Store could generate for them, they'll license their libraries to Apple even if longterm it becomes a threat to their cable company divisions (in the cases of Viacom, Time Warner, and Fox who all run their own cable/satellite divisions).
 
Lynxpro said:
So if Jobs can wow the media big wigs at the profits that an Apple iMovie Store could generate for them, they'll license their libraries to Apple even if longterm it becomes a threat to their cable company divisions (in the cases of Viacom, Time Warner, and Fox who all run their own cable/satellite divisions).

As the former network manager of one of the National ISP's(who just happens to have a OC12 backbone to 48 cities and OC3's to 33 more)

The problem I see with an iMOVIE store is the bandwidth required to download all of the Movies. the iMOVIE store would require more bandwidth than is available on the internet backbones. The iTunes Store isnt very bandwidth intensive but the iMOVIE store would be a bandwidth nightmare.

The second problem would be latency. Noone will tolerate watching a Movie at home and have it stop every few minutes for buffering like we see when we try to watch a clip(at very low resolution mind you) of trailers and such over the internet currently.
There just isnt the internet infrastructure available to support this kind of model currently today.

lastly.. to be able to pull off something like this i.e. an iMOVIE store. It would require Building an infrustructure as large as all of the current cable companies combined.
I doubt very seriously if this will happen
 
~loserman~ said:
The problem I see with an iMOVIE store is the bandwidth required to download all of the Movies.<snip>
The second problem would be latency. <snip>
There just isnt the internet infrastructure available to support this kind of model currently today.

lastly.. to be able to pull off something like this i.e. an iMOVIE store. It would require Building an infrustructure as large as all of the current cable companies combined.
Good points. I think I'd have to concede that setting up an iMovie store similar to iTMS is not possible under the current model.

The problem with bandwidth seems to occur in 2 places.

One is the limitation to the home. ADSL is doing pretty well these days. Cable often has a shared bandwidth, so it has good peak speeds but if many people use the cable it slows down.

The other is the limitation to the ISP. Again, they may have a huge pipe for their backbone, but this is shared by all the users - you wouldn't want them all buying a movie at the same time.

It's conceivable that the bigger ISPs could have local copies of movies to buy - like a deal with Blockbuster video (though this is difficult to impliment with all the ISPs). Similar to this, some phone companies have their PayTV channels available centrally, and then send it over their xDSL lines to homes (thus not using their backbone bandwidth)

The other potential is having every user who downloads a film being required to upload the same film to someone else - this way any purchased film gets downloaded a few times to an ISP, and each settop box shares (uploads) the film to another user from the same ISP. Similar to how the file sharing networks work now, but with copy protection and specifically sharing within certain IP ranges to boost network efficiency.

No easy answers for Apple, but a few possibilities. I feel making local copies for iMovie purchase is not within the scope of what Apple could do. Would file sharing address your concerns without having to build infrastructure?
 
The nature of content distribution over the internet vs. regular broadcast methods (wired and unwired) seems to make downloadable movies a questionable proposition.

By the time it becomes financially viable, other channels will probably be offering higher resolutions/quality, and completely on-demand video anyway.

In what ways would downloading movies over the internet provide value over traditional channels for your general consumer? (cable/satellite, video on demand, physical DVD purchase or rental, etc.) I really can't think of any.

If it costs the same to buy a physical DVD over downloading a compressed version of lesser quality over the internet, I'll choose the DVD anytime.
 
madmaxmedia said:
In what ways would downloading movies over the internet provide value over traditional channels for your general consumer? (cable/satellite, video on demand, physical DVD purchase or rental, etc.) I really can't think of any.

If it costs the same to buy a physical DVD over downloading a compressed version of lesser quality over the internet, I'll choose the DVD anytime.

Well, there is always the issue of instant gratification versus having to go out and buy a DVD. For cetain, ahem, special interest material (porn) it makes sense, at least that's what you'd think by the success of adult VODs.

Also, internet VOD stores could, in theory at least, provide a wider selection than digital cable-based VOD services (which if I'm not mistaken, rotate content due to limited server space and stipulations from content providers).

But, like you said, a physical DVD for me any day of the week.
 
madmaxmedia said:
The nature of content distribution over the internet vs. regular broadcast methods (wired and unwired) seems to make downloadable movies a questionable proposition.

By the time it becomes financially viable, other channels will probably be offering higher resolutions/quality, and completely on-demand video anyway.

In what ways would downloading movies over the internet provide value over traditional channels for your general consumer? (cable/satellite, video on demand, physical DVD purchase or rental, etc.) I really can't think of any.

If it costs the same to buy a physical DVD over downloading a compressed version of lesser quality over the internet, I'll choose the DVD anytime.

Exactly
iTUNES songs are very small compressed files Whereas iMOVIES would be GBytes in size unless they were compressed so much that resolution would be janky at best.

The iTUNES model works because most people cant hear the difference.
The iMOVIE model would NOT work because even Stevie Wonder could see the difference.
 
To say that downloading gigabytes of information is not gonna happen is just stupid. Look at the file sizes of, say OSX updates (or windows patches) being posted for download: 100-120mb in size and only requires a few minutes of download time for highspeed users. Also, lets not forget the new compression technology that quicktime will be using in the Tiger release. Granted, that's apple's proprietary codec, but it's the perfect example of how compression schemes are getting better at reducing file sizes and increasing quality. Couple that with faster and faster internet connections and it's completely viable.

An iMovie-type store will happen...i just hope Apple is the one to start it. They were able to create a whole infrastructure for a music purchasing, licensing, and distribution in only 9 months and it look how amazing that is. I'm sure they could do something equally amazing with video.
 
hanumang said:
Well, there is always the issue of instant gratification versus having to go out and buy a DVD. For cetain, ahem, special interest material (porn) it makes sense, at least that's what you'd think by the success of adult VODs.

Also, internet VOD stores could, in theory at least, provide a wider selection than digital cable-based VOD services (which if I'm not mistaken, rotate content due to limited server space and stipulations from content providers).

But, like you said, a physical DVD for me any day of the week.

True. At this point, it would be faster to drive to Blockbuster or your local rental store offering special interest material :) than to download an entire movie even at reasonable (but less than DVD) quality (say a 800 MB MPEG4 file.)

But I'm not the person to predict what download speeds will be like in the future. I'm personally guessing not fast enough, but I don't know. By 5 years from now, we'll be on whatever that next generation of DVD technology is, which will require include even larger amounts of data (I think even with better compression.)

Even if current download speeds for a typical broadband consumer were fast enough to stream DVD-quality video, I think the bandwidth would be very costly for Apple...

Someday, I guess you could have IP-multicasting, but then that's not applicable for streaming or on-demand video (although I assume it could come close to current VOD over cable, which is very roughly analgous.)
 
pherplexed said:
To say that downloading gigabytes of information is not gonna happen is just stupid.

An iMovie-type store will happen...i just hope Apple is the one to start it.

No one says it's NOT going to happen, just that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense from the end-user perspective. Buying movies online makes approximately as much sense right now as ordering heavy bags of dog food from Pets.com, instead of driving 5 minutes to the supermarket. Just because you can, doesn't mean it's worth doing or that a lot of people will do it.

There are companies offering internet VOD already (Divx streams, etc.) Divx.com is an example lists some online sites offering VOD. Not mainstream stuff, but we all know the technology works- that's not the subject of debate right now.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.