Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple should start their own internet service like a Clearwire, with these new Freq. that have opened up from analog tv days.

As long as its fast enough, their own internet service could off an IPTV subscription. No reason why they can't compete with cable, fios, satellite and Uverse

FCC auctioned off the good freqs a while back. It would be quite an expensive proposition for Apple to do so at very limited reward for risk. It would also be a huge distraction for Apple. Apple will do just fine w/ or w/o an iTunes sub service. It's not like they have competition in this area. The two biggest providers in this area are Hulu and Netflix, both of which are available on iOS and Mac OS X.
 
I really hope they make a television set with integrated apple tv technology. I want an apple branded tv in my living room.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

PeterQVenkman said:
I'd rather subscribe to a show rather than a channel. HBO can have my money for some of their series, but not all of their stuff is of the same quality.

This is exactly what you can do now in iTunes with a Season's Pass. Congrats!
 
I have a feeling this will be US only, than come to the Uk and maybe germany but won't come to most places due to licensing issues or whatever bs excuse.
 
The interesting thing here is that Apple is in a very unique position over folks like Netflix or cable companies. Cable companies and Netflix make 100% of their profit (and revenue) off subscriptions for content. This means that if the content providers charge them X per subscriber per month they need to charge Y per subscriber per month where Y is much greater than X.

Apple on the other hand makes most of their money on the devices they sell. So in effect, they could run a content subscription service at a very slight profit (much like the current iTunes Store business which made them $1.3B in revenue last quarter. Keep in mind that this is a "revenue" -- not a "profit" number, though I am sure they turned a profit since I can't see them having $1.3B in costs. The company's total operating expenses (including all salaries paid and supply-chain costs) came to $2.5B with a total gross revenue of nearly $12B. The total profit was $9.5B (after taxes it was $7.3B).

Clearly the iTunes Store is not Apple's core business. Assuming Apple only makes 30% off the iTunes store in revenue after they pay 70% to content providers, then that's less than $0.5B for potential profit.

Anyway, that said, Apple could run a TV subscription service at a loss if they wanted to, but the SEC would frown on that since it would clearly be an anti-competitive practice. So they only need to turn a modest profit (and I use the term "modest" lightly because $0.5B per quarter aint to shabby).

Running a TV subscription service at a small profit means Apple could offer consumer's lower subscription prices, while giving the content providers a much bigger percentage of every subscription dollar. A content provider would have a stronger inclination to want to cut a deal with Apple (if they did not fear Apple becoming the only distribution chain).

Anyway, that is the angle I would be playing if I were in Apple's position and negotiating with content providers to setup a subscription service. Simply put, "you will make a bigger cut if you deal with me" because customers will want to switch because of the lower cost, and for every customer that switches you make more money per customer. And what are the cable providers and Netflix going to do if the content providers cut a deal with Apple? Are they going to threaten to not renew contracts and reduce their offerings to consumers? I think this is exactly why you see moves like Comcast acquiring NBC. They are trying to prevent them cutting a deal with somebody like Apple that would hurt their cable subscription business. Mind you, NBC has the worst programming and ratings of the three major networks and the garbage they have lined up for next season is not going to help.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. Cable companies have been sticking it to the consumer for years. Apple will likely play on the greed of the content providers to usurp the cable companies. Eventually, Apple will probably stick it to the content providers like they did with the music industry since Apple's core business (devices) is consumer-driven, not partner-driven. And when I say "stick it to", I don't mean treating them unfairly, but not let them abuse the customer. Apple was the most fair with the music industry when it came to online streaming -- they refused to offer iCloud without new contracts in place whereas Google and Amazon chose to go for the "digital locker" backdoor to circumvent paying the music industry a dime.
 
Why I can't....

A lot of channels already supply the "service" free. We are just lacking the piece of technology that will set the standard for services/channels to use.

I can watch Netflix on my "Main" TV. Why? because my Blueray player has the Netflix app on it.
I can't watch old HBO shows on my "Main" TV. Why because I can't get the "HBO Go" app onto my TV. The same would apply to espy and all the other channels that have apps to watch there content.
When a channel comes out with an app to watch their content, I'm limited to my phone,tablet, or PC.
I sure I speak for a lot of people when I say this,"I want it on my TV." A new Apple TV or iCable or whatever you want to call it, would move these apps and content to the TV.
All we really need is a Magic Track Pad the AppleTV and the ability to download apps to it.:D
 
The interesting thing here is that Apple is in a very unique position over folks like Netflix or cable companies. Cable companies and Netflix make 100% of their profit (and revenue) off subscriptions for content. This means that if the content providers charge them X per subscriber per month they need to charge Y per subscriber per month where Y is much greater than X.

Apple on the other hand makes most of their money on the devices they sell. So in effect, they could run a content subscription service at a very slight profit (much like the current iTunes Store business which made them $1.3B in revenue last quarter....

Cable companies have been sticking it to the consumer for years. Apple will likely play on the greed of the content providers to usurp the cable companies. Eventually, Apple will probably stick it to the content providers like they did with the music industry since Apple's core business (devices) is consumer-driven, not partner-driven.


Realize it or not you illuminated the reason why Apple is likely to never have a sub service. The cable cos control the content makers to a large degree. Remember that Comcast owns NBC and Newscorp owns many of its affiliates in large cities. This is not a cut and dried situation where the content makers can easily grant Apple a license to use their shows in a service. There is plenty of pressure from other markets and they are not about to cut their nose to spite their face with an Apple slicer.
 
iCloud TV

I'd rather pay Apple $40-50 bucks a month, than pay the cable company $100+. The added bonus, all my other media is available on every TV (with an apple box or what-ever), and iCloud.

Totally!

I watch a total of 4 channels yet have to buy two additional tiers to get TLC and Discovery channel, they know how to gouge us.

I want this 'iCloud TV' that not only makes it my TV/Movie hub but also lets me show my pictures/home movies to my family when they're over ... and I can have a weather widget popup when I want to show the weather or warn of Thunderstorms/Tornadoes, etc., etc.

I 'THINK' this is where it should go, but the Cable companies will obviously fight it, my worry is that it takes a 'tenacious character' like Steve to drive it.
 
Totally!

I watch a total of 4 channels yet have to buy two additional tiers to get TLC and Discovery channel, they know how to gouge us.

I want this 'iCloud TV' that not only makes it my TV/Movie hub but also lets me show my pictures/home movies to my family when they're over ... and I can have a weather widget popup when I want to show the weather or warn of Thunderstorms/Tornadoes, etc., etc.

I 'THINK' this is where it should go, but the Cable companies will obviously fight it, my worry is that it takes a 'tenacious character' like Steve to drive it.

Even if a viable service comes out, it is hard for me to quit using eztv and piratebay. I gave up my cable last year and have not looked back. Not much on anyways.
 
IMO it's coming, it's just a matter of when, you can already stream Hulu, Netflix, etc. What would they do? Ban certain connections?
It would be healthy competition, maybe the cable companies would stop charging as much as a cheap/used car payment. They already charge more for faster connections.

Put yourself in their shoes. Just like all companies, your job, bonuses, etc revolve around growing revenues, not shrinking them. So if you were them, what would you do?

Here's what I would do: quietly work with my fellow duopolist (usually Verizon or AT&T as the only alternative for broadband in areas that I serve). Yes, that kind of "cooperation" is illegal but why should the law get in our way? We then announce higher prices for faster bandwidth AND put tiers in place to generate more money from "heavier" users. As long as my "friends" over at the sole competitor join me, the end users have nowhere to turn for lower prices.

I work the pricing of bandwidth so that I protect my cash cow that is cable/satt subscriptions making it cheaper to pay (too much) for the whole cable package than to try some form of Internet-based a-la-carte.

I also put great pressure on the providers of the content to NOT make better deals with the likes of Apple, Netflix and similar to prevent any kind of future in which I have to battle with Apple, Netflix, etc on price for the same content. I get away with this because the providers need my business a lot more and this model is what they know (too).

The (us) Apple people want to cut our cable bills in half with commercial-free programming, ignoring facts like commercials generate about $50 billion per year by themselves. Again, put yourself in their shoes. The trick to getting what you want is figuring out how to make the product they provide cost us about half of what it does now while still making more money for those doing the providing AND pumping their product through pipes controlled by the likes of Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc. (who will also want to increase their revenues too).

Bottom line: how do they make more while we pay less? That's been the problem all along. Nobody wants to take the financial hit to serve up on-demand content to the crowd wanting to pay a lot less for everything they want... especially, when the Apple, Netflix, etc subscription models are dependent on pumping their content through cable/phone/satt pipes.
 
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

SkippyThorson said:
Heck maybe the TV in your kitchen could "see" the bar codes off the products your throwing away, and automatically add them to your shopping list.

Unrelated to the tv discussion here, but I had to highlight it. Someone make this app. That's an excellent idea. That's one of the few apps I'd pay mora than $1 for.

Anyhow, I don't know if I put much stock in this rumor being false... I think Apple could make great strides in the TV world in the near future. Yet, I do put stock in the cable companies and studios making that very hard for Apple.

That's one of the oldest concepts still sitting on the shelf. Though it will most likely use RFD chips that send info to the fridge or some other device. The vision is already there. We're just waiting for the technology.

I've got an original one though, how about the flying iCar? I bet no ones thought of that!
 
live sports

if apple came out with a subscription/iptv service it would have to have live sports. if they showed NFL, NBA, MLB games live, they could compete with anyone
 
Why waste money when you can download an entire season for free in 20 minutes? You guys just love throwing your money at Apple that's why. I'll continue watching movies and shows for free on my Popcorn Hour A-210 while you fools throw your money away lol. If you were smart you'd use torrents instead of itunes but then again you bought Apple TV's so you're pretty much dumbass's to start with.
 
if apple came out with a subscription/iptv service it would have to have live sports. if they showed NFL, NBA, MLB games live, they could compete with anyone

Pretty sure they already have MLB.
NBA is in lockout his year so there is no pressing issue there.
Sunday Ticket is already on the iPad but is too expensive and not on the AppleTV yet.

Apple simply needs to open development to/push Apple TV.
 
TV viewers' perceptions of value have become distorted by over 50 years of an advertiser-based business model where the viewers are actually the products and the advertisers are the customers of the TV networks. TV viewers have come to place a low value on television entertainment, but there is a very high value to the networks in those ads. Consumers need to realize that they will have to pay a higher up front cost for content in an on demand, commercial-free, a la carte pay TV model, but in the long term, consumers will get a higher value not having to pay for content they aren't consuming and not having to watch ads for products they have no interest in.
 
TV viewers' perceptions of value have become distorted by over 50 years of an advertiser-based business model where the viewers are actually the products and the advertisers are the customers of the TV networks. TV viewers have come to place a low value on television entertainment, but there is a very high value to the networks in those ads. Consumers need to realize that they will have to pay a higher up front cost for content in an on demand, commercial-free, a la carte pay TV model, but in the long term, consumers will get a higher value not having to pay for content they aren't consuming and not having to watch ads for products they have no interest in.

I agree. I don't want to pay, but I do agree.
 
if apple came out with a subscription/iptv service it would have to have live sports. if they showed NFL, NBA, MLB games live, they could compete with anyone

The Apple TV2 already shows both NBA and MLB games live. You can even watch highlights of any game free of charge. The only one left is the NFL and you can get NFL games live on the iPad and iPhone. Hopefully the September event will announce something similar for the Apple TV regarding the NFL.
 
The biggest issue with "a la carte" channel pricing is that unless a channel is really popular it could end up being dropped because the number of people willing to pay for it - and how much they're willing to pay - is not enough to pay for the cost of providing it.

I may only watch a small set of channels (and on those channels, maybe a handful of shows), but because everyone is picking up the tab, those channels are available to me. And I am making other people's channels available to them.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)



This is exactly what you can do now in iTunes with a Season's Pass. Congrats!

You are correct regarding season pass. However, HBO does not release episodes to current shows as they air. They are typically released when the after the DVD is available.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

newagemac said:
if apple came out with a subscription/iptv service it would have to have live sports. if they showed NFL, NBA, MLB games live, they could compete with anyone

The Apple TV2 already shows both NBA and MLB games live. You can even watch highlights of any game free of charge. The only one left is the NFL and you can get NFL games live on the iPad and iPhone. Hopefully the September event will announce something similar for the Apple TV regarding the NFL.

I think you are forgetting a few sports. I have said for a while they should look at the PGA Tour, and what about college football? That is arguably more popular than the NFL in some parts of the country. Sports is a huge factor as to why I still have DirectTV for the time being.
 
Apple will wait

Apple are still doing well with the iPhone, iPad and to a lesser extent the iPod. They will probably need they next big thing in two or three years. That could be an iTV device. Apple saved the music business when illegal downloads became rife. As broadband becomes more widespread, and illegal film and television download sites proliforate, it won't be long before the film companies are begging Apple to save them.
 
Just occurred to me: the rumored Apple TV is a cable company. Thus bypassing all the hurdles. Mark it. Done.
 
I would be very, very happy to pay A$50 a month to have the ability to watch whatever i want on iTunes, as many times as i want.

No doubt if this was to happen, it would takes year to come to australia and the uk :rolleyes:

----------

if apple came out with a subscription/iptv service it would have to have live sports. if they showed NFL, NBA, MLB games live, they could compete with anyone

nah, however if they showed premier league league football, THEN they ould compete with anything/most popular league in the world.
 
...

first of all wall street journal has a great track record so I believe them. however I don't think they are talking about delivering content as in from Apple to the customer. I think they are talking delivering content from MAC to tv. as in a wireless display technology which explains why the WiFi in the new time capsule has been upgraded as well as the WiFi in the newer macbook pros. Apple did this silently but I feel the reason is to allow wireless transmission of 1080p content from mac to tv.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.