WWDC [2015 4th Generation] ATV Prediction Thread

[canman4PM]

I agree white at night would not be pleasing. However, maybe they could give you the best of both worlds and include a dynamic interface that changes background color based on local time. Light during the day that would change to dark as the sun sets.

It reminds me of the Disney BD that would change its menu depending on your local weather report.

My Bluray player does the day/night thing with the display.

----------

I agree on the local storage access issue. The biggest single issue I have with ATV is that I can have a 1080p download sat on a USB hard drive (which I do as a backup just in case something disappears off the store) yet then have to stream it in a lower resolution. Not only am I getting poorer quality it seems a total waste of bandwidth.

The other option is firing up my MacBook, load up the required content from the USB drive back into iTunes and leave my laptop running.

That's hardly a 'it just works' solution.

The other thing I'd like to see is the box being opened up a bit, presumably that would be through apps. In the UK we're sadly lacking in content and its frustrating that services like iPlayer, ITV Player, 4OD, 5 on Demand etc aren't available.

I, for on would like to be able to access Ultraviolet. I don't like the service much, but I have a ton of movies on it from BD purchases and would like to be able to watch them on the ATV. on the other hand I do get better soundtrack quality with the BD, but for casual viewing, using the ATV would be simpler.

 

[SwiftBunny]

What I hope

What I hope is that they take the same direction Nvidia took with shield, bringing the store to the tv. Complete redesign = new product, not sure if we would talk about the 4th gen in that case.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

What good is Apple issuing a UHD ATV, if it can't stream the future's UHD content.

Because you have to start somewhere. If Apple entirely guesses wrong and the little 4K box becomes completely obsolete when some complete standard is finally realized, is that really a big deal? The box as is costs $99.

Apple just embraced USB 3C before much of the world has jumped on it. While that may be more of an official standard than 4K at this point, there's little available for it now. However, Apple jumping on it may make it a standard that gains some legs.

If Apple best guesses a 4K standard for TV, it's likely they'll implement the same standard in 4K recording of next-gen iPhones and iPads. If so, that will lead to tens of millions of devices using Apple's choice of 4K. In short, Apple may have enough power to best guess at a probable standard and actually make it a standard. Look at the lightning connector as a good example.

The other problem, of course is how much better is UHD vs HD?

How much better is Skylake than current CPUs?
How much better is 5G than 4G?
How much better is the A9 than the A8?

It's always that way... in all tech. Apply that same argument to everything out now and there's little reason to upgrade from anything. There's not an app in the app store today that can take advantage of anything special in the A9. So why bother developing iDevices with A9s or Skylake Macs? Etc.

In tech you build the hardware and the software then plays "catch up". If you've seen 4K television displays (showing 4K sources), it's obviously sharper than 1080p. It doesn't take massive new TVs- it looks sharper on "regular size" TVs.

How much better is retina in 4"-5.5" screens? Some would argue it's far, FAR better than non-retina. Maybe it is. In the latest round of updates, Apple went beyond what was defined as retina. So was regular "retina" not the max that human eyes can resolve? Was that just marketing spin? Or is the new retina in the latest iDevices overkill (beyond what human eyes can resolve)? Whatever you or I believe, Apple sure sold a LOT of iDevices, both when regular retina was the "next big thing" and when the latest upgrade to retina was a "next big thing".

Does a 5K iMac matter? It's the same 27" screen size as the non-retina iMac? Where are you arguing against a 5K iMac? Is a 13" Macbook screen as retina visibly superior vs. non-retina? We "sit" the same distance from either. 13" is 13". Where are you arguing against a retina 13" laptop screen?

I've seen "the chart" argument done to death. I've read the arguments about distances from screens, average Joe's lighting, etc. But in the end, 4K is TVs version of a 5K iMac or 5.5" retina iPhones or 13" retina laptop screens or Skylake or 5G or A9. Each time I look at 4K screens, I think I see much sharper pictures than I can replicate on my 1080p set. Maybe my 1080p TV is just poor quality? Maybe marketing hype is just helping me fool myself into thinking I see a sharper picture? Or maybe 4K resolution even on the same size screen IS visibly superior to human eyes?

Whether true or false, the industry is marching there. Will there still be 1080p TVs for sale in 2 or 3 years? Can you find 720p sets for sale anywhere now? Some of these same kinds of arguments used to be slung when Apple was locked in on 720p as their MAX resolution. "Can anyone see a difference between 720p and 1080p?" and "1080p is a gimmick" was slung around like crazy when Apple endorsed only 720p. Then, Apple went to 1080p and all that just evaporated.

I can certainly see an argument against Apple going 4K in a next-gen TV. Then again, while a very limited sample, it looks like Apple gets around to upgrading the little box about once every 4 years. If I'm right about there being no 1080p TVs for sale in 2 or 3 years, the next TV would be seeming pretty obsolete at about the mid-point of it's "usual" upgrade cycle... just as Apple clinging to 720p in a 2nd gen TV made it one of the last bits of new hardware for sale when most everything else in the HD market had pretty much fully embraced 1080p.

Do they need to go 4K with this one? No. But why not? Go 4K and they can be a bit ahead of the curve. Better hardware can play current 1080p and fading 720p and SD at it's MAX. Stick to 1080p and that won't work the other way.

Does Apple need to go A9 or Skylake or 5K retina iMac? No. But why not? Many of us whine when Apple doesn't roll out new computers with latest & greatest graphics card (even if no Apple software can currently max it out). But then, with this ONE thing, some of us seem to default to the "good enough" argument and/or the "until every other part of the equation is fully resolved or in place" argument. Why do we "think different" with "good enough" with this ONE thing... when we whine for bleeding edge in everything else Apple makes?

If someone can't see much difference or is completely happy with 1080p, a 4K TV box doesn't force them to go 4K at all. Their 1080p or 720p will play exactly the same on better hardware... just like their favorite iDevice apps will run just fine on a new A9 chip. Just as one can rent their choice of 1080p or 720p or SD in the iTunes store now, any 4K content added to the store would almost certainly come with the alternate choices of 1080p or 720p or SD too. In short, there's no consequence for any anti-4K consumers should Apple roll out one capable of 4K. This piece of hardware will just have some untapped capabilities beyond what those users do with it... just like there's likely untapped capabilities in our current Apple hardware because we simply choose not to use it too. For example, there's a LOT of people out there with iPads with cellular capabilities who rarely- or even never- use the cellular hardware. It's there. They could use it if they want to do so. But they choose to use wifi only or tether from their iPhones, etc.

All that said: I don't actually expect 4K. Why? Because Apple would put 4K recording in iPhones and then iPads before they get around to making the little box have 4K playback.

 

[canman4PM]

Because you have to start somewhere. If Apple entirely guesses wrong and the little 4K box becomes completely obsolete when some complete standard is finally realized, is that really a big deal? The box as is costs $99.

Apple just embraced USB 3C before much of the world has jumped on it. While that may be more of an official standard than 4K at this point, there's little available for it now. However, Apple jumping on it may make it a standard that gains some legs.

If Apple best guesses a 4K standard for TV, it's likely they'll implement the same standard in 4K recording of next-gen iPhones and iPads. If so, that will lead to tens of millions of devices using Apple's choice of 4K. In short, Apple may have enough power to best guess at a probable standard and actually make it a standard. Look at the lightning connector as a good example.



How much better is Skylake than current CPUs?
How much better is 5G than 4G?
How much better is the A9 than the A8?

It's always that way... in all tech. Apply that same argument to everything out now and there's little reason to upgrade from anything. There's not an app in the app store today that can take advantage of anything special in the A9. So why bother developing iDevices with A9s or Skylake Macs? Etc.

In tech you build the hardware and the software then plays "catch up". If you've seen 4K television displays (showing 4K sources), it's obviously sharper than 1080p. It doesn't take massive new TVs- it looks sharper on "regular size" TVs.

How much better is retina in 4"-5.5" screens? Some would argue it's far, FAR better than non-retina. Maybe it is. In the latest round of updates, Apple went beyond what was defined as retina. So was regular "retina" not the max that human eyes can resolve? Was that just marketing spin? Or is the new retina in the latest iDevices overkill (beyond what human eyes can resolve)? Whatever you or I believe, Apple sure sold a LOT of iDevices, both when regular retina was the "next big thing" and when the latest upgrade to retina was a "next big thing".

Does a 5K iMac matter? It's the same 27" screen size as the non-retina iMac? Where are you arguing against a 5K iMac?

I've seen "the chart" argument done to death. I've read the arguments about distances from screens, average Joe's lighting, etc. But in the end, 4K is TVs version of a 5K iMac or 5.5" retina iPhones or Skylake or 5G or A9. Each time I look at 4K screens, I think I see much sharper pictures than I can replicate on my 1080p set. Maybe my 1080p TV is just poor quality? Or maybe 4K resolution even on the same size screen IS visibly superior to human eyes.

Whether true or false, the industry is marching there. Will there still be 1080p TVs for sale in 2 or 3 years. Can you find 720p sets for sale anywhere now? Some of these same kinds of arguments used to be slung when Apple was locked in on 720p as their MAX resolution.

I can certainly see an argument against Apple going 4K in a next-gen TV. Then again, while a very limited sample, it looks like Apple gets around to upgrading the little box about once ever 4 years. If I'm right about there being no 1080p TVs for sale in 2 or 3 years, the next TV would be seeming pretty obsolete at about the mid-point of it's "usual" upgrade cycle... just as Apple clinging to 720p in a 2nd gen TV made it one of the last bits of new hardware for sale when most everything else in the HD market had pretty much fully embraced 1080p.

Do they need to go 4K with this one? No. But why not? Go 4K and they can be a bit ahead of the curve. Better hardware can play current 1080p and fading 720p and SD at it's MAX. Stick to 1080p and that won't work the other way.

Does Apple need to go A9 or Skylake or 5K retina iMac? No. But why not? Many of us whine when Apple doesn't roll out new computers with latest & greatest graphics card (even if no Apple software can currently max it out). But then, with this ONE thing, some of us seem to default to the "good enough" argument and/or the "until every other part of the equation is fully resolved or in place" argument. Why do we "think different" with "good enough" with this ONE thing... when we whine for bleeding edge in everything else Apple makes?

If someone can't see much difference or is completely happy with 1080p, a 4K TV box doesn't force them to go 4K at all. Their 1080p or 720p will play exactly the same on better hardware... just like their favorite iDevice apps will run just fine on a new A9 chip. Just as one can rent their choice of 1080p or 720p or SD in the iTunes store now, any 4K content added to the store would almost certainly come with the alternate choices of 1080p or 720p or SD too. In short, there's no consequence for any anti-4K consumers should Apple roll out one capable of 4K. This piece of hardware will just have some untapped capabilities beyond what those users do with it... just like there's likely untapped capabilities in our current Apple hardware because we simply choose not to use it too. For example, there's a LOT of people out there with iPads with cellular capabilities who rarely- or even never- use the cellular hardware. It's there. They could use it if they want to do so. But they choose to use wifi only or tether from their iPhones, etc.

Where to start with the reply...

-Apple doesn't usually guess on this kind of thing. There's still debate in the Home Theatre crowd as to whether or not UHD will stick, or become a minor thing like LaserDisc and 3D. As you said, there is a standard for USB3C. Lightning I haven't seen outside of Apple world. There is a group of manufacturers and content providers working on the UHD standard. Apple isn't one of them. And most of them don't like Apple very much. It's highly unlikely anyone will notice or care what Apple is doing on this score. Example: Apple created AirPlay, the rest of the world went DNLA.

-As for the "how much better" argument. These are TVs were talking about, not phones or tablets costing much less. People don't buy TVs with the same frequency they do phones, computers or tablets. Because TVs cost thousands and phones cost hundreds. People are not going to drop thousands on minor improvement. They'll keep the old one until it breaks. The NTSB standard was over 40 years old before HDTV standards were even looked at. And the HDTV standards took years to create.

-I don't argue against a 5K iMac (It's an odd size, mind you - I'd love to know what they were thinking... probably editing 4K video full scale with room for toolbars). In fact I even went on to suggest the only use I can see for an 8K screen would be for an extra large computer monitor. I plan on buying a 5K iMac in the next year or two. While an iMac can be used to watch video, It can be also used for video and photo editing. Plus we sit pretty close to our computers, close enough that I can see the pixelation on my iMac, so there's room for higher res.

-I've seen 4K TVs. Some are amazing, some less so. And so are some high-end HDTVs. Mostly it depends on their scaling software taking the 1080P image to 2160P. Some do it better than others. And I've also noticed that I tend to stand much closer to a TV in the store than I sit in front of it at home.

-I think there will be lots of HDTVs for sale 2 years from now. If UHD takes off (again, some debate), it will take years to implement. The first UHD Blu-Ray players are only due to be out this fall and I imagine they'll be dreadfully expensive for a while. I've seen 720P TVs for sale as recently as this past Christmas. But only in small sizes 42" or less.

-I think this ATV will not have UHD, but if UHD gets a standard and content begins to take off beyond a handful of specialized hard-drives from the likes of Sony (which by the way won't work with other TVs) a few random movies on Netflix and clips on YouTube, I also think we might very well see Apple NOT wait 4 years between upgrades.

-Again you state the small upgrades of A9 over A8, Skylake over Haswell that happen from one year to the next. But to the average consumer, they're not upgrading every year for that little improvement. I for one went from iPhone 3G to 4S. Huge improvement over 3 years. I'm not getting another iPhone till the next one comes out. My current iMac is a 2008 Core2 Duo Extreme 2.8Ghz with a TB HD, 4GB RAM. My next will be Retina, quad core, Fusion drive with maybe 5TB, 16-32GB RAM. I imagine it'll blow my socks off. My TV is an over 4-year old plasma that will not get changed until there's a standard in place, so I know the TV will eat all that I can throw at it. (or it blows up) Newer LED lit LCDs might be sharper and brighter, but they still can't beat this TV for colour, black levels and off axis viewing unless I send $4000 or more. (this TV cost $1200 when new) It's replacement will be 4K, if it succeeds, be at least 100" and may be a projector. Depends on what OLED does over the next couple of years. This year's small upgrade from last year may be a huge upgrade for the guy buying it, because whatever it is he has is much more than a year old.

-As for why not, even if it doesn't get used? Because if costs money. That's why. And for any that will argue "Apple has tons of money"; there's a reason for that. They don't waste it. You don't see them releasing a computer for a chip that isn't in production yet. You won't see a UHD ATV until the standard is settled. And when it is, they could start building them soon thereafter.

As for the rest: you watch. When the standard is settled, the internet will be full of the howls of the early adopters who can't watch 4K on their 4K TVs.

 

[Ipadlover29]

My guess is the pricing will be between $119 and $149 with 16gb to 32gb of storage.

 

[Hookemfins]

Absolute highest price $125 but only if something big. Otherwise in order to compete $99.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

OK, it seems like you're talking about the purchase of 4K TVs, not the purchase of $99 set-top boxes. If so, head for Best Buy and look around. 1080p is going to fade out. 4K is already there and taking over more and more of the floor space. Whether anyone buying a 4K set gets to watch 4K on it is pretty much the same as many buying 1080p sets before there was much 1080p. It's just going to happen.

Yes, people don't buy TVs every year. But a $99 box from Apple is an easy buy. If Apple guesses wrong, a new $99 box won't kill anybody- especially when the wrong guess box will still play the 1080p standard to it's MAX quality (just like the 1080p TV plays anyone's 720p content on anyone's 720p HDTV to it's fullest).

If you can rationalize a 5K iMac at 27" vs. a non-retina iMac at 27" due to visibly seeing pixels, etc, others can rationalize 4K TVs or 4K-capable supporting devices like TVs for pretty much the same reason. As usual, since Apple has already endorsed 5K at 27", that's perfectly fine... and appealing. But since they haven't yet endorsed a 4K TV, that doesn't make good sense... until they do go there and then no one will call them stupid by jumping on 4K for any of the anti-4K reasons you've offered (exactly the same scenario when "720p was good enough" right up until Apple embraced 1080p... and then it was crickets from the "720p is good enough" crowd).

The idea of "cost" was slung hard by the "720p is good enough" crowd too (back when Apple still clung to 720p as their MAX standard). The implication was that it would cost so much more to include 1080p and "who could really see the difference" and so on. And yet, Apple rolled out a 1080p TV that cost the SAME. I'll give that the component part could cost more but then again, it might not. It's just a matter of Apple choosing to build the graphics horses into the chip to be able to play up to 4K. If they do that, why does it automatically have to cost more? When they finally went 1080p, it didn't automatically cost more.

Since much of your argument seems to revolve around 4K televisions, I'll again point out that a $99 box does not force anyone to buy a new television. Those with 720p TVs didn't have to buy 1080p televisions when Apple rolled out a 1080p-capable TV. This would be EXACTLY the same. Those happy with their 1080p or 720p television but needing or wanting to buy a new TV can simply spend the $99 or so and hook it up to whatever they have. It doesn't force them to buy a new TV.

Those already with 4K TVs or those ready to buy a new TV would simply have an option from Apple that might give them a way to feed their new TV something at 4K. That might only be photos shot with their iDevices at first. Or maybe they'll buy DSLRs and camcorders that can shoot 4K now and make their own content. Or maybe a few 4K things will show up in the iTunes store. If I'm them, I'd be interested in such a box from Apple. On the other hand, if Apple rolls out another 1080p box and I'm really wanting something to match up with the 4K set I own or am buying soon, maybe I wait on 4K BD or buy other hardware that can feed it 4K now... and Apple doesn't get my money. Yes, Apple cares about minimizing costs. But they also care about maximizing sales. Build a 4K TV and it can work with 4K sets already in homes, as well as 1080p and 720p sets too. Cling to 1080p and the 4K crowd can't get what they want from Apple.

Where we do agree is that I too don't expect this next one to have 4K... not because it would cost Apple too much, not because it must wait until every detail related to finalizing a standard is completely pinned down, not because of "the chart" or "most can't see the difference", not because we need to wait until Internet bandwidth everywhere is capable of supporting it, not because we have to wait until everything available in the iTunes store is available at 4K, etc... but simply because Apple will likely have the iPhone and then the iPad shooting 4K BEFORE they make an TV that can play that 4K. That's also how it went with 1080p and I expect this to be the same.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Are you sure about this "minority of the world thing"? I live in a small city in Canada and have access to home internet from 2 sources: Telus (phone company) and Shaw Cable. Both offer a la carte and bundled internet, phone and cable services. Internet is offered at up to 100 (which I have) and 120 Mbps respectively. I'm on Rogers for my wireless and for giggles I just ran a speed test on my iPad Air(1) over Rogers Wireless and was downloading over 66 Mbps over LTE. The city I live in has a Metro area of about 150K; it's not like I'm in Toronto or Vancouver. Nor are we near a major centre: Vancouver is almost 400 Km away through two mountain passes.

Yes. I'm sure. 400km isn't that far, especially in a huge country like Canada, you're in the same general area as one of the worlds richest cities, and in a country that generally invests well in infrastructure. This is still a minority situation.

 

[canman4PM]

Yes. I'm sure. 400km isn't that far, especially in a huge country like Canada, you're in the same general area as one of the worlds richest cities, and in a country that generally invests well in infrastructure. This is still a minority situation.

400 km over two mountain passes. With hardly anyone living anywhere in between. Our population density is so low making such infrastructure very expensive, per capita. And yet we have it. A New Zealander above responded to my post advising he or she has better internet than we do at 200mbps, with a couple cities offering 1000Mbps. Virgin UK advertises available 152Mbps speeds. Proximus in Belgium offers 70 Mbps. Kabel BW in Germany offers 100. Centronet and Cesnet in the Czech Republic offer speeds over 130Mbps. That's just to name a couple. Average internet speeds in Countries like Moldova, Lithuania and Latvia are over 60Mbps. That's average speeds. With South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong even faster (a writer in Hong Kong said he downloaded an hour long high self show in 86 seconds). The Japanese are working on 100Gbps service (yes that's G as in Giga) and have one provider already has 2Gbps now.

 

[laurim]

Who will supply your broadband?

CenturyLink offers up to 1 gig fiber DSL internet only plans in my area. The Comcast website won't even show me internet-only plans to compare and I hate the sales pressure when I just try to research by calling. I will probably get the 100 Mbps service, which would be faster than my current cable 50 for about the same price. I upload and download a lot of low compression video for my business so I need fast internet. The sales guy said they could waive the $99 for the new modem after I told them I had just bought a new modem for Comcast phone (which I only took to get a deal and have never used).

 

[laurim]

400 km over two mountain passes. With hardly anyone living anywhere in between. Our population density is so low making such infrastructure very expensive, per capita. And yet we have it. A New Zealander above responded to my post advising he or she has better internet than we do at 200mbps, with a couple cities offering 1000Mbps. Virgin UK advertises available 152Mbps speeds. Proximus in Belgium offers 70 Mbps. Kabel BW in Germany offers 100. Centronet and Cesnet in the Czech Republic offer speeds over 130Mbps. That's just to name a couple. Average internet speeds in Countries like Moldova, Lithuania and Latvia are over 60Mbps. That's average speeds. With South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong even faster (a writer in Hong Kong said he downloaded an hour long high self show in 86 seconds). The Japanese are working on 100Gbps service (yes that's G as in Giga) and have one provider already has 2Gbps now.

Ugh, rub it in why don't you? The current tendency for America to routinely sabotage our own potential for political or monetary reasons drives us all crazy.

 

[Irishman]

Will Beats be the New iTunes?

Apple's gotten weird with the things they upgrade and spend money to retool.

iPod Touch? Nope.

Macbook? Sure. Don't get me wrong. I'm just as glad as everyone that the MagSafe 2 connector abomination is gone. But, really? Now? This had to happen now?

iPod nano? Nope.

Mac Pro? Nope.

iPhone? Yes. Cha-ching!!

Retina iMac? Nope.

iPad? Of course.

AppleTV? Don't even ask.

iTunes? No way in Hell!

I'm wondering - does Apple acknowledge internally just how bad iTunes is? They have to, right? Especially on non-Apple hardware? They must be doing some crazy-genius-level planning over multiple years, multiple technologies that are guiding their production choices.

We know Tim Cook is a supply chain genius...mwahahaha!!

Hmmm, starting with the Apple Watch, we're seeing a compressed series of differing products using the same technologies - (Force Touch, I'm looking at you!) It's rolling out on the Apple Watch and the new Macbook first. If you haven't tried it out yet, you should. It feels indistinguishable from the old mechanical clicker in the trackpad. The only way I could tell the difference is the MBA next to it in the store made a clicking sound, whereas the Force Touch click doesn't. So, this has got to be a soft launch of FT, right? If it does well, then it will certainly show up on the next iPad and iPhone revisions, right? From there, FT's on all the new Apple laptops.

Looking at other Apple technologies and devices in the same way, what would need to happen for Apple to design iTunes from the ground up? To make people love it again? Beats incorporation? Is Beats on the Mac going to be a separate music player? A separate tab within iTunes? We know that Beats on iDevices up until now has been a separate player app. But if it continues to exist as JUST a separate app that people CAN ignore (like Apple's Podcast app), then people WILL ignore it.

I don't see Apple treating Beats like the Podcast App, as they spent way too much for people to ignore it (biggest single acquisition, remember?). What if Beats becomes a new iTunes replacement, complete with app redesign and store integration? They'd be working on new software for everything on which it runs - Watch, iPhone, iPad, iPod, laptops, desktops, ATVs. What if everything that was iTunes (including all the bad experiences users have had with it) becomes Beats from the ground up? It's even a similar naming convention, and you're only going from tunes to beats. The message is the same. This might give Apple the ability to start over in music.

If it works, it might be worth the money.

I know, I know. Crazy talk. What started out as an ATV revision reply quickly got weird. Sorry for the derail.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

CenturyLink offers up to 1 gig fiber DSL internet only plans in my area. The Comcast website won't even show me internet-only plans to compare and I hate the sales pressure when I just try to research by calling. I will probably get the 100 Mbps service, which would be faster than my current cable 50 for about the same price. I upload and download a lot of low compression video for my business so I need fast internet. The sales guy said they could waive the $99 for the new modem after I told them I had just bought a new modem for Comcast phone (which I only took to get a deal and have never used).

I've written how I expect this to play out before. Should an Apple or anyone else start taking a big bite out of cable TV revenues, I expect tiers on wired broadband to start tightening "for heavier bandwidth users like video streamers" AND prices for broadband only to go up.

I don't know if CenturyLink where you are is also in the cable business but if your choice is Comcast vs. CenturyLink and Comcast pinches broadband (tiers & pricing) as part of combating such a move by an Apple or similar, what motivates CenturyLink to not do the same? If they are also a Cable TV service, the duopoly will probably work in concert vs. an Apple

Where I am, I also am lucky enough to have more than 1 choice for broadband (many people aren't). For me, it's Comcast vs. AT&T Uverse. Both have cable TV businesses and I fully expect both to move together to make any challenge to that part of that business less-to-much-less appealing than just rolling over and letting an Apple take all that revenue from them. It's what I would do if I was them.

The path to some new model dream where Apple is able to fully replace a Comcast as middle-man distributor seems to require another big innovation: we need to be seeing rumors about some kind of new form of broadband that won't involve having to manually run a physical pipe to every home and is obviously not going to be 4G wireless spectrum. Until that rumor is heating up, an Apple has a massive dependency on the pipes fully controlled by the cable companies. Why should they just roll over and let Apple have it?

 

[laurim]

I've written how I expect this to play out before. Should an Apple or anyone else start taking a big bite out of cable TV revenues, I expect tiers on wired broadband to start tightening "for heavier bandwidth users like video streamers" AND prices for broadband only to go up.

I don't know if CenturyLink where you are is also in the cable business but if your choice is Comcast vs. CenturyLink and Comcast pinches broadband (tiers & pricing) as part of combating such a move by an Apple or similar, what motivates CenturyLink to not do the same? If they are also a Cable TV service, the duopoly will probably work in concert vs. an Apple

Where I am, I also am lucky enough to have more than 1 choice for broadband (many people aren't). For me, it's Comcast vs. AT&T Uverse. Both have cable TV businesses and I fully expect both to move together to make any challenge to that part of that business less-to-much-less appealing than just rolling over and letting an Apple take all that revenue from them. It's what I would do if I was them.

The path to some new model dream where Apple is able to fully replace a Comcast as middle-man distributor seems to require another big innovation: we need to be seeing rumors about some kind of new form of broadband that won't involve having to manually run a physical pipe to every home and is obviously not going to be 4G wireless spectrum. Until that rumor is heating up, an Apple has a massive dependency on the pipes fully controlled by the cable companies. Why should they just roll over and let Apple have it?

CenturyLink tries to bundle with their phone and DirectTV for tv shows. I'm totally NOT interested in getting some kind of satellite dish installed.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I hear you. You're in the somewhat unusual situation of maybe have a pure play broadband provider. Even there though, as soon as their competition (that offers Cable TV services too) start putting more and more pinch on broadband, I think the pure play players will follow them.

For example, if Comcast currently offers broadband alone at- say- $50 and cable at- say- $75 and an Apple comes out with something that motivates the masses to want to switch, I fully expect Comcast broadband to approach $50 + $75 or more for a broadband-only subscription. In short, they'll make up for their potential losses of cable TV service revenues to an Apple or similar's replacement service.

If so, if Comcast's broadband (or tiers for video streamers) is at $125, why doesn't a pure play like Century adapt their pricing to maybe $120? Or match them at $125? That's just more profit for Century and the only other choice is already there.

Of course, what I actually expect is for basic cable packages to evolve to match Apple's basic cable package too. Then, cable will pair the mirror offering with broadband and voice for less-to-much-less than Apple's basic cable offering + separate broadband or separate broadband + voice. Again, that's what I would do if I was them.

Basically, cable always has the advantage due to their control of broadband pipes. An Apple's solution is entirely dependent on someone else's broadband pipe. It seems cable will get theirs either way.

A key missing piece of the new model dream is some kind of breakthrough innovation that connects us directly to iCloud, bypassing the cable company broadband infrastructure. Until we see that, Apple or similar is always at the mercy of competitors that also are the broadband suppliers.

 

[rbrian]

Are you sure about this "minority of the world thing"? I live in a small city in Canada and have access to home internet from 2 sources: Telus (phone company) and Shaw Cable. Both offer a la carte and bundled internet, phone and cable services. Internet is offered at up to 100 (which I have) and 120 Mbps respectively. I'm on Rogers for my wireless and for giggles I just ran a speed test on my iPad Air(1) over Rogers Wireless and was downloading over 66 Mbps over LTE. The city I live in has a Metro area of about 150K; it's not like I'm in Toronto or Vancouver. Nor are we near a major centre: Vancouver is almost 400 Km away through two mountain passes.

I live in the capital of Europe's oil industry (Aberdeen). I get 3.5mb/s on ADSL, 12mb/s on 3G. I can't complain about the price - less than £15 per month for unlimited usage ADSL, £12 per month for 1000 minutes, 1000 texts, and 4Gb data. Unbundling is the norm in the UK, and we have only one network with 100% coverage (Openreach, owned by British Telecom) which can be used by any provider. I have the choice of dozens, maybe hundreds of ISPs, driving prices down.

I would happily pay more for higher speeds, but Openreach tell me it's "not commercially viable" to provide fibre. I asked how much it would cost, so I could raise the money myself or from my neighbours, but they say they don't know. So how the **** do they know it's not viable?!

 

[Dunk the Lunk]

I live in the capital of Europe's oil industry (Aberdeen). I get 3.5mb/s on ADSL, 12mb/s on 3G. I can't complain about the price - less than £15 per month for unlimited usage ADSL, £12 per month for 1000 minutes, 1000 texts, and 4Gb data. Unbundling is the norm in the UK, and we have only one network with 100% coverage (Openreach, owned by British Telecom) which can be used by any provider. I have the choice of dozens, maybe hundreds of ISPs, driving prices down.

I would happily pay more for higher speeds, but Openreach tell me it's "not commercially viable" to provide fibre. I asked how much it would cost, so I could raise the money myself or from my neighbours, but they say they don't know. So how the **** do they know it's not viable?!

Not sure where in Aberdeen you live but...

https://www.cable.co.uk/news/work-on-aberdeens-gigabit-broadband-network-gets-underway-700000505/

 

[rbrian]

Not sure where in Aberdeen you live but...

https://www.cable.co.uk/news/work-on-aberdeens-gigabit-broadband-network-gets-underway-700000505/

About a quarter of a mile away from one of the industrial estates they're going to upgrade. I registered my interest, and finally they replied saying they had no plans to do residential. Virgin announced a £3bn expansion to their network. Three months after I asked, they told me they have no plans to come here. BDUK say that my address is covered by the commercial rollout, so they're not doing it. All Openreach will tell me is that there are no plans - they're busy upgrading everywhere else, leaving just this one enclave. I emailed my MP, she didn't even bother to reply.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.ph...lds-bt-openreach-new-home-install-delays.html

 

[stage44]

I really want an OTA tuner included even though I'm not holding my breath.

The rumoured TV subscription is good for the US but Freeview and free to air channels are huge in the UK with the majority of people using them against the likes of Sky and Virgin Media. If Apple are serious about wanting to interest the UK market then they need to consider this.

Looking forward to the event nonetheless.

 

[Che Castro]

My prediction

Apple will merge appletv and AirPort Extreme


But what I really want is what Xbox has hdmi passthru
So I can connect my ps4 or cable box to Apple TV

 

[iPhil]

My prediction

Apple will merge appletv and AirPort Extreme


But what I really want is what Xbox has hdmi passthru
So I can connect my ps4 or cable box to Apple TV

The Xboxone has a HDMI pass thru already .. Plug the Cable box into pass thru port and HDMI out to the tv -- you can do split screen tv and gaming ..

 

[Che Castro]

The Xboxone has a HDMI pass thru already .. Plug the Cable box into pass thru port and HDMI out to the tv -- you can do split screen tv and gaming ..

that's what I said phil

 

[kristoffer4]

I just hope that it has an app store and HDMI CEC.

 

[laurim]

TiVo’s Roamio OTA is a lot like what the TV could be. Four OTA tuners, 500 GB dvr storage, access to Netflix, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify and Hulu, etc. $15/month ($500 lifetime) for channel guide and such. eSATA port to add more storage. And you can search across all the services for what you want to watch. $145 at Amazon, $199 MSRP

So, I think an OTA function for TV is totally doable if Apple can't resolve the issue with providing local tv.

 

[Irishman]

I really want an OTA tuner included even though I'm not holding my breath.

The rumoured TV subscription is good for the US but Freeview and free to air channels are huge in the UK with the majority of people using them against the likes of Sky and Virgin Media. If Apple are serious about wanting to interest the UK market then they need to consider this.

Looking forward to the event nonetheless.

Do your TVs in the UK have tuners built in? In the US, they're required by law.