Apple to Unveil Television Set Operating System at WWDC?

[nemaslov]

The difference is that the music industry was on it's knees. They practically HAD to go with anything that might bridge the way to new digital revenue streams. Apple's option "just worked". Ask them how happy they are TODAY to have put themselves so deeply under Apple's thumb and you'll better understand why many other players (like Amazon) get better pricing, etc from them. Now they are desperate to try to get out from under Apple's hold over their business.

The movie & TV and cable industries are not on their knees. And they've seen first hand what happens when you "help" Apple gain domination over a market. They have no intention of duplicating what happened to their music industry cousins.

Even if Apple can somehow get the production side to play ball, any Apple solution still depends on the distribution (broadband) pipe. Who owns that pipe? Aren't they also in the video distribution business? If you have an alternative option for broadband (you're lucky), aren't they also in the video distribution business? Why are the owners of the pipes going to allow Apple to take their lucrative subscription businesses when Apple's "magical" alternative will have to flow through those very same pipes?

The long-term missing rumor that makes all of this "new television model" go is some way to link Apple to us DIRECTLY. It won't fly while we have to depend on video on Apple servers having to reach us through broadband pipes owned by cable & communications companies who are also in the video subscription business.

Cable companies are losing audience big time. There is art lead one entire generation who would never subscribe ego cable on any large scale. Many of us use the cable company for the pipe coming into our homes and hat their contact delivery. Netflix is good but the user experience is horrible. Unless you know what you are looking for, you see the same few shows on screen.

 

[NewMacFan2011]

I would be happy with just the iOS ABC, TV.com, NBC, & CW apps becoming accessible from the AppleTV. The apps are already free, the shows are a day late but I've been fine with that since I got the AppleTV in the first place. Airplay for free or have it in the AppleTV as an app. I really don't see a big difference. If Apple is able to pull it off they will have huge leverage over the cable companies over the next few years (which is when I think the "iTV" will get released).
I can just imagine how many people will go out and buy a $100 AppleTV to watch basic cable shows the next day.
Buy an iPod Touch ($200)/iPhone ($400), the Apple TV ($100), a month subscription to Netflix (roughly $80), and you can even throw in 5-6 ($20) Season Passes to other shows from iTunes and you still talking about a HUGE savings compared to regular cable.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Thank you! I think you hit the nail on the head here. People replace their computers, phones, iPods, iPads, gadgets, heck even TV components much more frequently than they replace TV sets themselves.

Are we *set* they are building a TV? Maybe this is all a next generation, blow-them-out-of-the-water Apple TV set?

Looking back I have replaced my iMac about every 4-5 years and mobile devices around every 2-3 years. Am I interested in now having to replace a 55" HDTV every 4-5 years? Not a chance. I prefer just buying a decent quality HDTV that I can run at least 10 years and then upgrade components attached to it. Having everything integrated into the TV means it's lifespan is going to be much shorter.

I don't know... maybe a lot of members of this forum are loaded with cash and can afford a new large screen TV every few years, but for some of us a nice big HDTV is a long term purchase.

 

[wankey]

This a gigantic year for Apple. I gotta say this year's lineup of updates are better than last year.

Wow nothing has actually come out yet, Apple has one of the most effective hype machines ever.

 

[mazz0]

Hmm, I'll believe it when I see it.

Know what I'd like to see? On the front page, at the bottom of each new rumour, a poll for how likely people think it is to come true. “Likely”, “Not Likely” and “Hard to say” or something like that.

 

[diamond.g]

I would be happy with just the iOS ABC, TV.com, NBC, & CW apps becoming accessible from the AppleTV. The apps are already free, the shows are a day late but I've been fine with that since I got the AppleTV in the first place. Airplay for free or have it in the AppleTV as an app. I really don't see a big difference. If Apple is able to pull it off they will have huge leverage over the cable companies over the next few years (which is when I think the "iTV" will get released).
I can just imagine how many people will go out and buy a $100 AppleTV to watch basic cable shows the next day.
Buy an iPod Touch ($200)/iPhone ($400), the Apple TV ($100), a month subscription to Netflix (roughly $80), and you can even throw in 5-6 ($20) Season Passes to other shows from iTunes and you still talking about a HUGE savings compared to regular cable.

I know Comcast sees the writing on the wall, they are looking into how their subscribers utilize bandwidth. They have removed our caps (in some markets it has been increased 50GB).

I think they are going to to tiered usage, like cell phone companies, which can potentially kill third party IPTV solutions. I have averaged 100GB a month for a few months mainly due to Netflix usage. can you imagine what would happen if all TV programs came over IP? That usage would double easily.

 

[belsokar]

Not saying the rumor is true or not true...but with WWDC a little over a week away, there are a number of sessions marked as "Session To Be Announced"...The last time I attended WWDC, the majority of these were placeholders for new technologies announced at the keynote but that they didn't want to let slip out early...That year, 2010, it was mainly retina displays (and new iPhone 4), new Xcode software, and several sessions revolving around that new tech that was still a "secret" up until that point...

This year, I imagine it will be the same, with some new iOS features announced (Navigation maybe being the big one?)...if an Apple TV SDK is announced, I imagine it will be primarily focused towards the current apple tv hardware, with obvious implications for a future set...with 10 days or so to go though, there are quite a few "open" slots, so expect those to be filled with yet to be announced features...

 

[animatedude]

the "pulling the strings" comment makes me more sick than anything at least before the release of the iPad we knew for a over year that Apple is actually working on a tablet but now with all these TV rumors, it's not confirmed if Apple actually working on a TV or something similar to a TV or what exactly.

Dear Apple,

don't leave us in the dark like this GIVE US SOMETHING WE CAN ACTUALLY SPECULATE ON!

 

[djrod]

You've had the option of very powerful universal remotes, ie Logitech Harmony, for quite some time.

Yeah, super intuitive, how many buttons have this thing, 5 hundred?

I prefer a tv controlled with this:

 

[3282868]

You've had the option of very powerful universal remotes, ie Logitech Harmony, for quite some time.

The Logitech Harmony Link is much better as it uses a great iOS app for iPhones, iPod Touches, and the iPad (iPad app even has cable guides and info right on screen for programming your DVR). It's a great app, very easy to program and use.

 

[handsome pete]

Cable companies are losing audience big time. There is art lead one entire generation who would never subscribe ego cable on any large scale. Many of us use the cable company for the pipe coming into our homes and hat their contact delivery. Netflix is good but the user experience is horrible. Unless you know what you are looking for, you see the same few shows on screen.

Cable companies aren't losing subscribers at the rate you imply. One estimate is nearly a million subscribers, which is still barely 1% of all subscriptions. But most signs point to subscriber loss as slowing down. It also has a lot more to do with it than just people "cutting the cord" in lieu of online delivery. There are a lot economic implications as well.

I would say that a lot of the younger generation would skew toward the streaming model, but I would imagine that a lot of them are also big in the torrent/piracy usage. That's just not sustainable.

It'll be interesting to see how the delivery side of things evolves, but I think it's a much more complicated problem than people think.

----------

The Logitech Harmony Link is much better as it uses a great iOS app for iPhones, iPod Touches, and the iPad (iPad app even has cable guides and info right on screen for programming your DVR). It's a great app, very easy to program and use.

It looks interesting and I've been satisfied with Logitech's remotes in the past. I still like some kind of tactile feedback though to blindly use my remote.

 

[Peace]

I think I know what that new API could be. and now I think I know what Jobs meant when he said he had cracked it.


I said this about 2 months ago. Maybe longer.

Just woke up so search my nick and you will find the post. Maybe later when I feel better I will explain it.

trust me.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Cable companies are losing audience big time. There is art lead one entire generation who would never subscribe ego cable on any large scale. Many of us use the cable company for the pipe coming into our homes and hat their contact delivery. Netflix is good but the user experience is horrible. Unless you know what you are looking for, you see the same few shows on screen.

That's fine, and believe what you wish. If your apparent view becomes a mainstream thing- that is, everyone dumps cable TV for some kind of Internet-delivered replacement by Apple or someone else- say hello to much higher broadband rates (to make up the revenue difference). We won't "win" by Apple (or someone else) killing the Cable TV subscription with an Internet-delivered TV subscription that depends on pipes owned by the cable companies.

If an alternative does replace Cable, we'll just pay as much as we do now to the cable companies (for broadband service) PLUS the cost of the new replacement. They'll suggest it's because the increasing broadband demands for new streaming video services requires huge investments of building out their broadband network (sound familiar?). And/Or they'll tier the pricing based on broadband consumption so that it can't be a better deal to go with the alternative (again, sound familiar?).

It may work something like this for you now because the bulk of the cash cow that is cable/satt subscriptions isn't feeling much pain (yet). But it won't stay that way if more people join your party. Enjoy it while you can.

 

[Stella]

Yeah, super intuitive, how many buttons have this thing, 5 hundred?

Image

I prefer a tv controlled with this:

And you have very limited amount of functionality with the apple remote without using some sort of on screen GUI.

I'll take the logitech. The logitech harmony remotes are easy enough to use.

Logitech remote vs Apple remote + on screen GUI. I know which one I'd be faster using - yup - the logitech remote.

 

[2bikes]

It just doesnt make sense to me to release the OS without the hardware. How will the developers know what do to with it?? Was there an OS release for iPad before it`s launch? No (Tim Cook style Q&A ) So I call this bogus.

 

[lilo777]

Yeah, super intuitive, how many buttons have this thing, 5 hundred?

Image

I prefer a tv controlled with this:

Just like Apple's one button mouse, this Apple remote is the worst remote ever. Do you really like using menu for adjusting the volume? Or jumping to the last channel? Or muting? Are you going to scroll through 800 channels?

 

[BaldiMac]

Looking back I have replaced my iMac about every 4-5 years and mobile devices around every 2-3 years. Am I interested in now having to replace a 55" HDTV every 4-5 years? Not a chance. I prefer just buying a decent quality HDTV that I can run at least 10 years and then upgrade components attached to it. Having everything integrated into the TV means it's lifespan is going to be much shorter.

I don't know... maybe a lot of members of this forum are loaded with cash and can afford a new large screen TV every few years, but for some of us a nice big HDTV is a long term purchase.

I think a reasonable solution to this problem would be to create a dockable AppleTV box. Something that you can replace every few years to support more complex software. Works best with the AppleTV panel through direct integration with the sensors and controls, but you can also hook it up to a standard panel for the majority of the functionality.

People don't replace their TVs that often. And Apple isn't going to make a dent in the full TV market with a $1,000+ TV fast enough to gain leverage with content providers. A sub $100 box with a more expensive "accessory" display panel is the only way I see them going into this market.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I can just imagine how many people will go out and buy a $100 AppleTV to watch basic cable shows the next day.
Buy an iPod Touch ($200)/iPhone ($400), the Apple TV ($100), a month subscription to Netflix (roughly $80), and you can even throw in 5-6 ($20) Season Passes to other shows from iTunes and you still talking about a HUGE savings compared to regular cable.

Here's the thing: when does an Apple solution yield "huge savings" compared to the established model? For example:

• Do iPhone users get the huge savings in the cell phone service?
• Is the current (and long term) pricing of television shows & movies a huge savings over other sources?
• Does music purchased from iTunes offer huge savings vs. buying the exact same music from other sources?
• Does Apple computers cost less than the exact same hardware offered in competitor's boxes?
• When Apple decided to get into the eBook business to go against Amazon's eBook pricing model, did consumers get "huge savings" on eBooks?
• Etc. Can anyone name ANY Apple model replacement solution that resulted in "huge savings" for consumers vs. the established offerings?

Why will THIS be different than all that? Apple is not a "huge savings"-oriented company. Most people think of Apple as a "premium"-focused company. They try to be the best at whatever they choose to do and charge a premium for what they sell that reflects their ideal (of rolling out the best).

Besides, any scenario that would take huge revenue flows out of the video subscription/distribution business and/or kill the commercials (revenue) of that industry would kill much of the production of new programming. You can't make "huge savings" cuts to the cash flows and maintain the quality and volume of what we're all buying.

I love the concept and really, who doesn't want a much cheaper video subscription of commercial-free programming of just the stuff "I" watch? But, if we all got 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% or more off of what we spend on however we get our video now, a very large amount of the production of such video would cease.

When I was very young, there were dollar movie theaters still around (ticket to the movie cost $1). What usually played there was "B" movies or worse, never first run, GREAT movies. That "huge savings" relative to full prices for "A"-movie tickets delivered a "you get what you pay for" viewing experience. When we dream of putting it to the likes of Comcast, etc and/or the greedy Studios by embracing some replacement model that will cost us much less, we are actually taking aim at "B" movies & television that will cost much less to produce (and it will show).

You don't get an "Avengers" or "Titanic" or "Avatar" at $1/ticket. You don't get the best quality television programming at a monthly subscription of $10 or $20 or $30. If Apple is going to deliver the latter, they'll be taking their 30% right off the top, leaving 70% of whatever price "I" want to pay to merge with the same from many others to eventually reach those who make the stuff we're buying. If the production houses see their revenues plunge from what they are now to 60%, 70%, 80% or less, there's no way they can keep producing the shows they produce.

I don't like it (either) but that's the reality of this particular dream.

For some kind of Apple replacement model to really fly in a BIG way, Apple has to get the content production houses on board. That means Apple will have to show them how they can make MORE money by going with Apple's new solution vs. the established model. Apple can't show them how we consumers are going to be able to pay way less than we pay now and show them how they are going to make more than they make now unless someone else is picking up the difference. When it's only content producers, Apple and us in the chain, there's no one else to pick up the difference. Think about it. How do the producers make more, Apple gets their 30% cut and we pay much less than we do now? Who among those three will not get what they want?

 

[Peace]

Control..

Think HDCP.

 

[MacFly123]

WOW even if this doesn't happen WWDC is shaping up to be AWESOME

This would be an AMAZING one more thing though! Man I'm excited.

 

[ixodes]

Apple stands to make massive profits selling content.

With the prices we pay now to the cable companies, dish companies et al, it's a gold mine that only Apple will be able to monetize in an obscenely profitable way.

All the while convincing their followers it's a bargain

 

[BaldiMac]

Apple stands to make massive profits selling content.

With the prices we pay now to the cable companies, dish companies et al, it's a gold mine that only Apple will be able to monetize in an obscenely profitable way.

All the while convincing their followers it's a bargain

They don't make massive profits selling any other kind of content, so why would this be different? Apple has always operated the iTunes Store a bit over break even.

 

[Rocketman]

Apple could as a matter of practicality act as a cable style MVNO and let AppleTV4 take inputs from your existing cable, satellite and internet sources and simply menu and DVR them. It could then as a sidecar service offer pick and choose a la carte channels not provided by the services you have subscribed to.

Until there is sufficient bandwidth at sufficient locations to put it all on the internet, and we are really far from that when you consider under 15% of service sites have access to fiber, the need is for concatenation and organization, not replacement.

40% of the populated US geography only has dial-up. Still.

Rocketman

 

[NewMacFan2011]

Here's the thing: when does an Apple solution yield "huge savings" compared to the established model? For example:

• Do iPhone users get the huge savings in the cell phone service?
• Is the current (and long term) pricing of television shows & movies a huge savings over other sources?
• Does music purchased from iTunes offer huge savings vs. buying the exact same music from other sources?
• Does Apple computers cost less than the exact same hardware offered in competitor's boxes?
• When Apple decided to get into the eBook business to go against Amazon's eBook pricing model, did consumers get "huge savings" on eBooks?
• Etc. Can anyone name ANY Apple model replacement solution that resulted in "huge savings" for consumers vs. the established offerings?

Why will THIS be different than all that? Apple is not a "huge savings"-oriented company. Most people think of Apple as a "premium"-focused company. They try to be the best at whatever they choose to do and charge a premium for what they sell that reflects their ideal (of rolling out the best).

Besides, any scenario that would take huge revenue flows out of the video subscription/distribution business and/or kill the commercials (revenue) of that industry would kill much of the production of new programming. You can't make "huge savings" cuts to the cash flows and maintain the quality and volume of what we're all buying.

I love the concept and really, who doesn't want a much cheaper video subscription of commercial-free programming of just the stuff "I" watch? But, if we all got 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% or more off of what we spend on however we get our video now, a very large amount of the production of such video would cease.

When I was very young, there were dollar movie theaters still around (ticket to the movie cost $1). What usually played there was "B" movies or worse, never first run, GREAT movies. That "huge savings" relative to full prices for "A"-movie tickets delivered a "you get what you pay for" viewing experience. When we dream of putting it to the likes of Comcast, etc and/or the greedy Studios by embracing some replacement model that will cost us much less, we are actually taking aim at "B" movies & television that will cost much less to produce (and it will show).

You don't get an "Avengers" or "Titanic" or "Avatar" at $1/ticket. You don't get the best quality television programming at a monthly subscription of $10 or $20 or $30. If Apple is going to deliver the latter, they'll be taking their 30% right off the top, leaving 70% of whatever price "I" want to pay to merge with the same from many others to eventually reach those who make the stuff we're buying. If the production houses see their revenues plunge from what they are now to 60%, 70%, 80% or less, there's no way they can keep producing the shows they produce.

I don't like it (either) but that's the reality of this particular dream.

For some kind of Apple replacement model to really fly in a BIG way, Apple has to get the content production houses on board. That means Apple will have to show them how they can make MORE money by going with Apple's new solution vs. the established model. Apple can't show them how we consumers are going to be able to pay way less than we pay now and show them how they are going to make more than they make now unless someone else is picking up the difference. When it's only content producers, Apple and us in the chain, there's no one else to pick up the difference. Think about it. How do the producers make more, Apple gets their 30% cut and we pay much less than we do now? Who among those three will not get what they want?

Excuse my Kool-Aid drinking. As you can see by my screen name I am new to this. I have a Sprint service on my iPhone so my unlimited streaming for a $30 family plan I have had over the last 10 years is great. I can see the trend hurting us in the long run but right now I think the content that they give us through iTunes is cheap considering the ease & versatility in what you can do with it. I do agree with you about the music, I think that $2 a song is ridiculous. $20 for a 10 song album not for me. I feel that this has a lot to do with some songs going virtually unpurchased because they stink compared to the "hits", so they need to make up the difference. Hopefully we don't see this with other content later on down the road.

 

[charlituna]

, cant ignore youtube and apple shud go after it and make it a great system

Or Google, who actually owns YouTube, should fix their own stuff.