Reports of 50" Apple Television in Jonathan Ive's Lab as Talk Heightens Ahead of CES

[ctdonath]

That is "then" - this is now. Apple's first foray into the marketplace isn't going to be something that is made for what will be YEARS away.

Years? try minutes.

RED One cameras shoot 4480x2304, and cost around $20,000 - cheap for a serious production. They're in use now, content exists, and getting it on-screen at home is mostly a matter of throwing money at licensing issues. Sure you're not going to get The Bachellorette in WQHD tomorrow, but look at http://www.red.com/experience for a slate of high-demand content which iTunes could deliver to your new iTV minutes after you pull it out of the box.

Internet content delivery is limited only by bandwidth, not resolution. The pieces are in place, the codecs can handle the image dimensions, content is already being produced at excessive resolutions, delivery channels exist, the only thing missing is trustworthy display hardware at a viable price and a public willing to buy in.

 

[northy124]

so what is the current business model for TV?

NBC pays producers and directors and actors to create a show (check "30 rock" is created)

Next NBC has a contract with a cable provider (Time Warner, Comcast) to host NBC and "30 rock" at 8pm on some specific day of the week.

Consumer pays Time Warner and Comcast.

that money goes where exactly? A portion to Time Warner, a portion to NBC?
Does Time Warner keep all the money and NBC already got paid by Time Warner picking up NBC as a channel on the front end?

It is not that, that is for sure.

Based off of the UK's Sky:
There are carriage fees that NBC (other Cable companies) pay to Cable Company to have their channel listed on the TVGuide and that is about it... most of the money that NBC make comes from advertising revenue that is aired during TV shows ad breaks and/or sponsorship deals.

 

[richiekim]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)

I don't get why Microsoft is listed as one of the companies feeling threatened by this move. They're not in the home electronics/TV market. Is it just that they want Apple to fail? Do they feel this somehow threatens their share in the PC marketplace? I can see how the iPad is a threat to PCs, but who will replace a computer with a TV?

Xbox 360 says hello.

 

[heisetax]

I completely disagree with the assertion that these sets are quality. I would say the Samsung TV I own looks good for a thin black monolith. However, the software on the so-called SmartTV is atrocious. Really, the only good thing about TVs today is that they are very good at putting HDMI on the screen. So in summary, as long as you treat the SmartTV like a monitor you'll love it.

My 47" 5+ year old display is just that. It has no TV tuner in it. The only people that need TV tuners anymore are those that can still get enough over the air channels to keep them happy or that want a cable ready analog display. Most cable companies require their customers to use a company supplied digital cable box. Also with things like eyeTV, Hulu & other TV show providers we do not need a TV tuner. I actually like my 47" display as it has no TV parts in it to pay for or to wear out. It serves 2 purposes. The main one is to show our customers where we are with their work. The 2nd use is the keep the members of the family that is not helping with our work to have something to entertain them. I also have a 28" display that does either of the rolls. Also when one has many windows opened, 5+ displays can really help one see what is going on.

Bigger is usually better if the resolution is kept high enough. I'd take a 70 + 80" Apple display with a 3840 X 2400 resolution. This allow me to show my customers more while still doing some low resolution 1920 X 1080 that people want to call HD. Also a TV tuner is not needed. They just take up space & produce more heat.

 

[firewood]

This just shows how little you know about ITV the television network.

. The market cap of ITV PLC is less than $3B, or just a few percent of $81B.

 

[bbeagle]

so what is the current business model for TV?

NBC pays producers and directors and actors to create a show (check "30 rock" is created)

Next NBC has a contract with a cable provider (Time Warner, Comcast) to host NBC and "30 rock" at 8pm on some specific day of the week.

Consumer pays Time Warner and Comcast.

that money goes where exactly? A portion to Time Warner, a portion to NBC?
Does Time Warner keep all the money and NBC already got paid by Time Warner picking up NBC as a channel on the front end?

It goes like this:
1. A production studio creates a show, '30 Rock', that costs '$30 million' to produce a season.
2. NBC decides when to air this show (Thursday 8pm) to maximize their profits through commercials.
3. NBC sends their signal out over-the-air for reception by antennas for free. This is paid for by the commercials.
4. NBC gets additional money by negotiating with Time Warner to pay 15 cents a subscriber, and then Comcast to pay 17 cents per subscriber, then DirecTV to pay 12 cents a subscriber, and so on....
5. Time Warner decides to place NBC (15 cents), with CBS (15 cents), NBC (10 cents), etc. etc. etc. in some package that they charge $30/month for.

Also why is there like a gold, silver etc. package where certain channel are missing, certain ones are there etc. What the hell kind of FU to the customers is this? Why can't I customize a Channel lineup. Say i pick only 20 channel I care about. Why does channel 4 need to be NBC?

Because HBO charges something like $7/month per subscriber. Time Warner could just put that in the regular package, and charge $37 instead of $30 for it, but they think the best way to profitability is to have different packages. But it's all up to Time-Warner. They could easily have customized lineups, but they choose not to.

Originally, when the cable systems all started, it was all-or-nothing. The systems weren't designed for individual-channel blocking because it didn't make any sense. People all got about 5-10 channels over the air, and cable was just over-the-air channels in higher quality without having to re-position your antenna, plus a few extra channels. Then HBO came along, and they then had 2-tiers. They could only split it so much.

The technology is now here where they could offer channels individually if they wanted to.

So if NBC has a contract with Time Warner is that excusive for say the New York area? Can apple also have a contract with NBC for TV shows?

Yes - definately. Apple could negotiate with NBC New York to get their shows. There are legal issues, however, with who they can show the feeds to. They can't show someont the NBC New York feed in Cincinnati, because the NBC Cincinnati owns rights to this content in the Cincinnati area.

I know for example for NFL games you need direct TV for our of region games and they also black out games etc. Such a damn joke. TV must be the biggest FU to the consumer now that I think about it. Such a broken customer experience.

Yes - DirecTV has an exclusive agreement with the NFL. And the NFL has some of it's own made-up rules regarding black-outs which are pretty stupid. Apple could negotiate the next NFL exclusive contract if they wanted to. I think the DirecTV one expires in 2015?

Also the "free" hardware you need to rent from them is a joke. It's big and ugly and boxy and so unelegant next to the rest of my TV boxes. The remote is awful, the DVR is hard to use, the space on it is small, the channel are laggy.

Now that I think about it I hope apple fixes all of this. Wow could be great.

Apple could negotiate it's own contracts with NBC, CBS, HBO, etc. and have it's own model of charging per network if they wanted to. And I hope, if it's not Apple, that someday soon some company changes how things work.

 

[firewood]

Yes because ITV would want to sacrifice their brand name for a billion dollars...

iTV entire market cap is a small fraction of Apple's cash. Apple could buy ITV PLC the whole company, fire a few overpaid execs, and sell off the assets, maybe at a profit after cutting overhead... Oh, but keep the name.

 

[charlituna]

What I'm expecting is that Apple will get streaming contracts with many different providers and this will be a part of the small Apple TV device. For a small fee, like maybe $10/month, you can get like 40 networks streaming like ESPN, Comedy Central, ABC Family, CNN, Fox, AMC, etc. etc.

Unlikely. The nets won't want it and it's just as 'evil' as cable is now.

Apple will either do it by show like now or by individual channel, possibly via iOS based apps that would work on your Apple TV and iPad either separately or in some kind of joined mode. Something like they did with the Grey's Anatomy app about year ago where additional info popped at various points. They could even have it set up so when someone is using a real product in a placement gig the info about it pops up on your iPad. So if you think McDreamy's sweater is so sexy you can tap tap and buy one for your fellow.

The only packaging that might perhaps happen would be nets that are owned by the same parent. So perhaps it might be $5 a channel but NBCUni is also offering NBC, USA, Syfy, Bravo, A&E and Oxygen for $20 a month if you want all of them.

----------

A senior executive of one of the world's largest companies has [wait for it] a TV in his office.

No, he has a prototype in his design studio. One that might or might not be a real product or just a test that was rejected and has been collecting dust for the past whatever years.

he probably has a 7 inch iPad in there also

 

[sarge]

So Sir Jony has a TV in his office. mmkay.

Apparently, he likes to watch Champions League and English Premier League games on a nice big Panasonic TV. Since he's in the US the games are all during his office hours.

so THATS why Apple are bidding for the rights to the Premiere League games. Anything to keep Sir J stateside...

 

[Mike Oxard]

iTV entire market cap is a small fraction of Apple's cash. Apple could buy ITV PLC the whole company, fire a few overpaid execs, and sell off the assets, maybe at a profit after cutting overhead... Oh, but keep the name.

It's true but it'd be a terrible idea. Spending 3 billion to get a name that is synonymous with crap television and at the same time would cause confusion in what is likely to be their second biggest market would make Apple a laughing stock. I'm sure they'll come up with a better name if they really don't like AppleTV.

 

[charlituna]

Android knock-off coming 2 months after Apple release theirs.

Google etc will announce theirs next month so that they can be first and say that there's no way they are a knock off because they announced theirs first. Mind you it won't be released until "later this year"

And then when it is released, it will look nothing like the stuff in their original announcement but very 'inspired by' the Apple TV.

 

[samcraig]

Internet content delivery is limited only by bandwidth, not resolution. The pieces are in place, the codecs can handle the image dimensions, content is already being produced at excessive resolutions, delivery channels exist, the only thing missing is trustworthy display hardware at a viable price and a public willing to buy in.

Bolded for emphasis of your own words. We aren't minutes away. Right now - you can't get true HD content via streaming. Not TRUE HD. Sure you can get the resolution - but the compression is not even close to blu-ray, etc.

And now you want to increase the resolution and transmit that. "Minutes" away. Not at all.

Not for streaming, sir. For local playback, sure. But that's not really Apple's "model" now is it.

 

[charlituna]

I can see the news. "Apple employee goes to a bar, loses his 50" TV".

Never happen

Why? Because Apple was tired of their employees going out to bars and being identified and accused of losing their prototypes (much less actually doing it) so they did what any responsible company does.

They built their own bar. Only no one knows which one it is because they have hidden it as just your run of the mill watering hole. But the big screens hanging in the corners are all prototype Apple TVs. The music is coming from a prototype Apple Tune Box disguised as a 'normal' jukebox.

And all drinks are spiked with a little Apple KoolAid.

 

[samcraig]

. The market cap of ITV PLC is less than $3B, or just a few percent of $81B.

iTV entire market cap is a small fraction of Apple's cash. Apple could buy ITV PLC the whole company, fire a few overpaid execs, and sell off the assets, maybe at a profit after cutting overhead... Oh, but keep the name.

How much they are worth has nothing to do with the discussion. They have had that brand name for decades and have built that brand's name. They aren't going to just sell off their BRANDing.

But feel free to continue your armchair economics, marketing and business 101 classes.

 

[rovex]

On the basis that they own the rights to "iTV" which everyone keeps dubbing this thing. I believe ITV have already won the whole ITV thing anyway against Apple with the Apple TV which was going to be called iTV.

That's not to say they can't persist in their demands for the use of the name, which is precisely why those dismissing it as being unlikely and even impossible just doesn't hold much water.

 

[ctdonath]

Apple could buy ITV PLC the whole company...Oh, but keep the name.

Reminiscent of a third-hand story:

Guy in an old pickup truck, wearing flannel shirt and jeans (or some such mundane garb), pulls up to a luxury/sporty car dealer and looks around with the intent of buying a "nice safe car" for his college-bound daughter. Ignored by the staff, he eventually intrudes on idle group of salesmen and solicits some service. Indicating the rusting truck outside, he is rebuffed as having no business at such a high-class dealership. He shrugs, leaves, and crosses the street to a diner, and over coffee makes two phone calls. A half-hour later the dealership manager informs the sales staff the shop has been sold, and the staff in question ... released. Seems the old guy with understated clothing and old vehicle was in fact a multi-billionaire.

(BTW: notice that millionaires dress to impress, and billionaires dress however they like.)

The lesson for iTV is that should Apple decide on acquiring the moniker in question, complying would be the sensible route, lest Tim Cook make a couple phone calls.

 

[charlituna]

How can returns outnumber sales?

They are probably working on math that goes something like

There were 1000 units. All of them sold. But then 800 of them were returned. So the final 'sold' units were only 200.

 

[sarge]

How much they are worth has nothing to do with the discussion. They have had that brand name for decades and have built that brand's name. They aren't going to just sell off their BRANDing.

But feel free to continue your armchair economics, marketing and business 101 classes.

Nevermind British law governing communications

 

[adztaylor]

. The market cap of ITV PLC is less than $3B, or just a few percent of $81B.

Again...you have absolutely no idea whatsoever. It's more than just mere money. You have cared to look up the market cap of ITV but have neglected to research that it is run by several regional companies (not all of them will sell) which have massive legal implications if Apple were to make a bid for a public service network.

This Apple fanboy ignorance where you think they can throw its cash reserve at something just because the market cap is less than what Apple have in the bank is complete foolishness. Read more post less. I'm just glad someone like you isn't in charge of Apple.

 

[Akack]

That 50" is going to break wallets.

 

[tann]

I just keep thinking, "How heavy will a 50" HDTV be with a piece of glass that big on it?"

Our 50" plasma is 30+kgs (without stand). It's ridiculous lol.

 

[charlituna]

Hahahaha.. awesome.

If Apple wants to use iTV, they probably can. Money talks in negotiations.

Not when the other side sale very publicly that they would not give up the name (which they are using on a daily basis in a very well known way), when it was still only rumored that Apple would use said name, and they would sue without flinching if Apple tried to use it anyway

The iPhone name was still taken even when Apple made their iPhone 1 announcement.

by a company that had failed to release a product using the name after they bought it from another party, let it run down to the end of the final grace period and then announced something in the 23rd hour to come out 'later in the year' to justify why they should be allowed to keep the trademark. but the judges didn't buy it and said they had to share it with Apple.

 

[heisetax]

Yikes! Not only am I poor, but live in an old house with smallish rooms. 50" is way too big. My exh brought home a projection tv back in the mid-90's, don't remember the exact size, but the best place to watch it was sitting on the stairs - across the hall.

I could probably go a bit bigger than the 32" I have now (though 32" is fine if the quality is high). I use a very small tv in my bedroom on my dresser and that's fine too.

To me 50" is just waayyyy too big and would be way out of my price range.

I would be thrilled to get a system that does the following:
allow me local network tv
allow me to add "cable" channels - the ones *I* want, not a package
not have my internet bill go up (right now it's cheaper for me to get basic cable plus internet than to get internet alone)
go back to one damn remote! ever since the "new and improved" digital cable came out, I now have more cables, 2 remotes, a converter box that is weighs less than the cables and more image problems than I ever had. I don't have HD tv's. PLUS the converter box plugs in which uses electricity. Hate them! Another improvement that did nothing for me but cost me money and aggrevation.

TV size is so relative. When my wife & me were younger & we wanted portable watch anywhere TV we thought that our 9" screened HeathKit models to be just right. Then as we got older & had a couple of kids we wanted larger screens for them to see a better color image on Sesame Street. 40+ years later we are liking bigger & bigger screens. We now have 24", 28",32" & a 47" model for customer use & display. The 47" model i s appearing to be smaller everyday. We can still watch TV on our 4.35" screened Android phones but the over 47" size is getting more compelling everyday. If we can't even make up our own minds when it comes to screen size how can you say what is correct for everyone else. With all the different sizes of homes &/or spaces to be used, with different likes, different amounts of money to spend & many other things that have differences, it would be hard to find a model that would be too small or one that would be too large to not have its own loyal following.

Content will be what many of us will be looking for. What will it have to offer, what will we have to provide plus the item that we hate to mention, what will it cost in dollars or whatever your currency is as well as other costs i.e. privacy & such?

 

[charlituna]

They could probably buy the ITV name if they REALLY wanted,

You mean if they really want to get sued for trademark theft. Same issue behind why they didn't call it an iTV two models of STB ago.

 

[Mike Oxard]

You mean if they really want to get sued for trademark theft. Same issue behind why they didn't call it an iTV two models of STB ago.

No, I meant they could buy it, why would they get sued if they bought it?