Sony Looking to Cut Out Cable Providers with Web-Based TV Service

[*LTD*]

I don't even want to pay for à-la-carte channels. I want to pay only for the shows I want!

And some of us don't even watch TV at all, just YouTube (only specific episodes of specific shows), and prefer movies/films from time to time (though very little that was produced in the last ten years.)

I for one haven't watched broadcast TV regularly in years. I tuned into the regular TV feed maybe three times this year.

Then again, that group is probably in the minority anyway. The market is huge for shows like Mad Men, LOST, etc.

 

[Oletros]

So everybody knows what's wrong with this industry. It's only when Apple looms that anyone else pulls their finger out and tries to make things better.

And what has loomed Apple in this field?

 

[TheNewDude]

The problem is that in most cities the Cable TV provide is also the Internet provide.

In Canada, Rogers is the largest cable tv and internet provide. In order to keep control and profits up, they will just hike up the price of internet and lower the bandwidth (which is already really low to begin with).

Unfortunately, I don't see this flying it Canada unless we have new ISPs entering the market.

 

[Meandmunch]

Someone needs to find a way to give us what we all want. Ala carte TV. I only want like 4-5 different channels total.

This is exactly what everyone wants they just don;t realize it. 90 of the 100 channels I do get are just noise to me. I want to "subscribe" to individual channels or networks or even just shows like I do podcasts and pay appropriate amounts of money for them (sub $9.99). When I am not enjoying that kind of content I am either playing games, using apps or consuming web-based content on my 55in set.

Does Apple deliver a full on iOS TV set or some super duper Apple TV device I don't know, but I want my set to become the worlds largest iMac with my iPad or iPhone as my controller.

Bring it!

 

[PeterQVenkman]

Make sure you add Sons of Anarchy to that list at some point.

Peg Bundy is the best actress on TV right now. She'll never get an award because the show creator (her husband) keeps trashing the awards shows in the press.

Plus she gets awesome points for voicing Leela on Futurama.

 

[asphalt-proof]

Sorry - and who do you think will want to dictate the terms and conditions. I don't see this happening because I don't think Apple plays nicely with competing companies.

Apple has been part of consortium before with competitors. Both companies stand to make massive inroads in the living room with media content. And I really don't think either have the clout to get it done on their own.

 

[old-wiz]

Most likely the shows would be heavily compressed, full of even more ads, and of poor quality. The cable companies would simply raise the charges for internet usage and still get the same amount of money. They absolutely hate the idea of people getting their TV programs via the internet. They will also probably start introducing usage caps so you won't be able to watch very much without paying hefty surcharge or a more expensive tier of service.

 

[69650]

Apple is not going to stream a whole load of TV channels down the internet. Think about it logically. Any Apple television would probably have:

1. Free to air digital channels through your existing areial (freeview, etc)
2. Stream a few select channels - Sports, Discovery, etc

That would do many people as an alternative to Cable/Sat.

Then add in:
1. Streaming rented movies (Netflix/Lovefilm/iTunes)
2. Stream iTunes purchases direct from the cloud or from local media server
3. Play games directly on the tv (replacing XBox/PS3)
4. Internet access

And you have a compelling one box solution that would suit many people.

The cable companies will soon wise up and start offering super-fast unlimited data plans for a price, just like Virgin is doing in the UK. What they lose in cable tv reveunues they will make up in broadband subs revenue.

 

[radicalcentrist]

Peg Bundy is the best actress on TV right now. She'll never get an award because the show creator (her husband) keeps trashing the awards shows in the press.

I didn't realize Katey Sagal was married to Otto!

 

[samcraig]

.

The cable companies will soon wise up and start offering super-fast unlimited data plans for a price, just like Virgin is doing in the UK. What they lose in cable tv reveunues they will make up in broadband subs revenue.

That makes it a wash - so what's the customer benefit? Aside from not having to click through 500 channels.

Whether I'm paying $50 for cable and $50 for internet or $100 for internet and no cable doesn't much matter to me.

The model only works and will sell if any rise in internet costs doesn't equate to cable packages that already exist.

 

[rhett7660]

Most likely the shows would be heavily compressed, full of even more ads, and of poor quality. The cable companies would simply raise the charges for internet usage and still get the same amount of money. They absolutely hate the idea of people getting their TV programs via the internet. They will also probably start introducing usage caps so you won't be able to watch very much without paying hefty surcharge or a more expensive tier of service.

Aren't they doing that now in some area's? I would love to dump 90% of my channels. ala cart for a very small fee would be great.

 

[BC2009]

...when your service provider limits your data to 250Gb a month. TV via the web will easy hit that cap when someone in your house has the set on most of the day.

The cable company still controls the pipe.

Exactly. The only way to innovate in television is to get the cable companies on board. Many have said that the future of the "channel" is an "app" on a set-top/tv-integrated device (like Apple TV or Google TV). I wonder if the way to win over the cable companies is to let their service be an app as well. Would this get cable companies out of the set-top box business and let them focus on the service offering?

If all cable services offered an app to use their experience then they could live side-by-side with other "for-pay" apps. The question is still how they keep you tied to their service when you have a la carte options. The only way I can see that is to start making the unlimited internet access a bundle with their cable television service or to start limiting folks to some number of GB per month.

The problem is that their monopolies in this area prevent folks from going around them. Wireless internet can't compete with cable on speed -- and you need speed for streaming.

 

[Darien Red Sox]

Would love it if Sony or someone would partner with Apple, it would be nice if you TV could connect to iTunes without a separate box.

 

[ftaok]

Apple is not going to stream a whole load of TV channels down the internet. Think about it logically. Any Apple television would probably have:

1. Free to air digital channels through your existing areial (freeview, etc)
2. Stream a few select channels - Sports, Discovery, etc

That would do many people as an alternative to Cable/Sat.

Item #1 won't work in the US. The number of people using antennas in the US is very small. I've read some articles that have that percentage down to 15%.

Then add in:
1. Streaming rented movies (Netflix/Lovefilm/iTunes)
2. Stream iTunes purchases direct from the cloud or from local media server
3. Play games directly on the tv (replacing XBox/PS3)
4. Internet access

And you have a compelling one box solution that would suit many people.

The cable companies will soon wise up and start offering super-fast unlimited data plans for a price, just like Virgin is doing in the UK. What they lose in cable tv reveunues they will make up in broadband subs revenue.

I don't know how it works in the UK, but this won't happen in the US. The cable companies over here typically have local monopolies. They won't give up their reveunes without a fight. Unlimited broadband (at least unlimited in the sense of enough data for TV streaming) in the US is a pipedream in the current system.

The problem with having a majority of folks switching from traditional cable TV to streaming would mean that each household would be hitting the network at ~7 Gbps for each TV that's on. That's a lot of bandwidth that's consumed. No way this can work while retaining the 100+ channels that consume ~ 40Gbps each.

The current cable TV system works because everyone watches the same data streams at the designated time.

They'll need to come up with a new way to distribute content before they can switch from appointment TV to "on-demand" TV. Perhaps it'll be done with local storage (encrypted, of course) that gets filled up from a single common data stream that gets transmitted at a designated time. Then every customer that watches that particular show will grab that data stream an save to a local harddrive that each TV set can access.

The bottom line (IMO) is that the current broadband system isn't ready for everyone to jump to streaming.

EDIT - sorry for rambling. I kinda did a stream of conciensness (sp?) thing.

 

[iAshley]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Someone needs to find a way to give us what we all want. Ala carte TV. I only want like 4-5 different channels total.

Or just choose the programs you want no need for channels

 

[something3153]

Aren't they doing that now in some area's? I would love to dump 90% of my channels. ala cart for a very small fee would be great.

That's the thing though - why do you think they'd give you the same benefit for a much lower cost? They won't. You won't be able to get 5-10 channels for 2.5-5% of what you spend for 200 channels, I promise.

 

[Kevtech1]

Haaa, what a joke!

This is comical! Considering I tried streaming the NFL Sunday Ticket on the PS3 for 3 weeks before I gave up and not only cancelled the service, but also returned my PS3 (should be called a POS3!). The picture was constantly freezing and digitized. I had over 7mb down and was going straight from the modem to the console. Don't bother commenting about the technical (it could have been your blah blah). All you have to do is a simple Google search on how bad PlayStation Network is. I am not alone on this one. I hope Sony crashes and burns!
Apple, please bring us Smart TV's! or at least a "app store" capable AppleTV!

 

[*LTD*]

This is comical! Considering I tried streaming the NFL Sunday Ticket on the PS3 for 3 weeks before I gave up and not only cancelled the service, but also returned my PS3 (should be called a POS3!). The picture was constantly freezing and digitized. I had over 7mb down and was going straight from the modem to the console. Don't bother commenting about the technical (it could have been your blah blah). All you have to do is a simple Google search on how bad PlayStation Network is. I am not alone on this one. I hope Sony crashes and burns!
Apple, please bring us Smart TV's! or at least a "app store" capable AppleTV!

Interesting point. If they can't even mange their own network (especially in light of what's happened over the past 6-7 months), then how will essentially the same crew manage something as ambitious as what they're proposing? They can't even get their TVs to sell.

Apple, I can see having a solid, workable plan that is already halfway there thanks to the successful ecosystem already in place and their experience with building exceptional hardware, added to that their obsession with getting major initiatives right the first time, out the door. Sony, I can't. even if they manage the content aspect, they'll have absolutely nothing at all on Apple when it comes to slick delivery.

 

[coolbreeze]

...and up goes cable internet rates because that pipe is killing their TV revenue...

 

[Tiger8]

Now that our TVs have a couple of hundred channels, wouldn't it be nice if we could use other than channel 3? The cable companies need to figure a way to work with the TV manufacturers.

You're kidding, right? Am I reading you correctly? Are you still connecting your cable box to Channel 3?

The 80s called and they want their setup back

 

[Digitalclips]

Sony beats Apple to the punch. Tens of millions of Sony tv's in homes. It might work.

I always wondered if the old 'Sony absorbs Apple' suggestions from a decade or so ago might resurface the other way around. I see a lot in the Sony Portfolio that would go well with Apple. Apple could afford Sony and not notice the $17 Billion. The other company want to see Apple keep very close to, Disney.

 

[coolbreeze]

You're kidding, right? Am I reading you correctly? Are you still connecting your cable box to Channel 3?

The 80s called and they want their setup back

What did coax ever do to you!?

 

[something3153]

As if Steve Jobs was the only person who has been trying to break the Cable conundrum. Oh PLEASE LTD - get a reality check.

And it shouldn't be ANY surprise that Sony or any other TV MANUFACTURER would naturally be thinking in this direction.

It's not only possible -but very logical - that since Steve's bio came out and it was mentioned that Steve "cracked" the TV issue (which details are non existent) Sony wanted to let the world know that it's been something they've been working on for years. The press window opened up.

It's called positioning. Sony might have originally wanted to keep their work quiet and launch with a boom when they were ready - but since Jobs bio came out - they entered the media fray. There's nothing wrong or surprising about that.

Why?

Because if they hadn't - you'd still be arguing in 2-3 years when Sony came out with their product that they copied Apple. Or that they only started to work on the product BECAUSE it was known Apple was working on it to.

So again - LTD - you intentionally set up a no-win scenario for anyone other than Apple.

And beyond that, until Apple delivers, that statement by Jobs is the equivalent of Fermat's Last Theorem. He claims to have cracked it. He thinks he cracked it. Until it's in stores, ready to deliver the content everyone wants at a lower price than the cable companies offer, I'm skeptical at best.

 

[JAT]

That makes it a wash - so what's the customer benefit? Aside from not having to click through 500 channels.

Whether I'm paying $50 for cable and $50 for internet or $100 for internet and no cable doesn't much matter to me.

The model only works and will sell if any rise in internet costs doesn't equate to cable packages that already exist.

Well, I think most people in the US are more like me. I was: $100 TV bill, $30 internet bill, $40 phone bill.

Switched to internet only at $70, dropped the rest. That's actually pretty decent savings. But then, I'm not using cable internet, their prices are too high. (Comcast here)

But this isn't for everyone. My family has been fairly understanding, and is enough technically adept to cope.

 

[something3153]

Interesting point. If they can't even mange their own network (especially in light of what's happened over the past 6-7 months), then how will essentially the same crew manage something as ambitious as what they're proposing? They can't even get their TVs to sell.

Apple, I can see having a solid, workable plan that is already halfway there thanks to the successful ecosystem already in place and their experience with building exceptional hardware, added to that their obsession with getting major initiatives right the first time, out the door. Sony, I can't. even if they manage the content aspect, they'll have absolutely nothing at all on Apple when it comes to slick delivery.

You mean like all the issues with Siri? How can Apple manage something as ambitious as what they're proposing if they can't even manage their own network?