This is an updated version of what I posted last week. Will appear in this week's gdgt newsletter. Go to gdgt.com/newsletter to subscribe.
I don't think anyone doubts that Apple could make a stunning HDTV. It'd look great, have an amazingly crisp screen, and sport a clean, intuitive interface with impressive features like Siri-powered voice control, access to tons of apps, and an HD FaceTime cam. It'd probably make every other HDTV on the market seem clunky by comparison.
That's the easy part. We all know Apple could do this tomorrow.
What's hard is actually changing the way we get television.
This is mainly because they way most of us get our TV is via cable or satellite, relatively expensive services which maintain tight control over the form and manner of our consumption. A few still get all over their TV over the air, and an even smaller (though growing) number watch stuff online via Hulu, Netflix, iTunes, and other services, but for the most part watching TV means subscribing to a cable or satellite service.
Anyone that wants to disrupt that relationship has their work cut out for them. Either you need to figure out how to work with the existing cable and satellite services people already have or you need to get access to enough programming to make leaving those services a no-brainer. Neither is particularly easy.
Here are some scenarios:
1. Work with what's already there
Google's solution to these problems was a box that was designed to work with the cable or satellite TV box you already had. It didn't work so well. This was partly due to poor design, but it was also an issue of it being very difficult to blend a web-connected service with legacy cable and satellite systems. Google's attempt was kludgy (let's just say it involved IR blasters) and it's not surprising it failed. Apple could conceivably try something like this, or try and work with CableCard, but they'd basically be creating a front-end for someone else's service and be at the mercy of the cable companies' efforts to make that experience as miserable as possible (just ask TiVo). Neither feels like something Apple would do.
2. Partner with providers
Of course, it's not impossible that they'd figure something out and get a cable or satellite provider to play ball, presumably by spending an ungodly amount of money, and work with them to build an Apple TV that worked seamlessly with your existing TV service. It's not hard to imagine at least one cable company doing it (partnering with Apple would be one way to stop subscriber churn), but for it to be worth Apple's while -- i.e. for it to be a large enough market -- they'd have to get most of the cable and satellite providers on board in order. And they'd have to do this over and over again in every country they wanted to sell Apple HDTVs in. It'd be much harder than dealing with the mobile carriers, and making matters worse, consumers often have very little choice in their provider. They may want to switch to a company that's partnered with Apple, but they might not have that option. Just like I would love to ditch Time Warner Cable for FiOS, but Verizon doesn't offer service in my apartment building. Again, a pile of cash can solve lots of problems, but this isn't a slam dunk.
3. Focus on over-the-air.
Most of the country receives free HDTV broadcasts -- even if they don't know it -- and it's certainly possible that an Apple TV would try and route around the cable and satellite providers, but most people want the channels they get via those paid services. Plus you'd be asking people to deal with setting up an antenna. This seems like a non-starter to me, but I figured it was worth at least mentioning.
4. Go online-only and create an IPTV service that would get people to leave cable and satellite
Apple could just turn its back on all the legacy providers and focus its efforts entirely on building a TV that integrates tightly with an online video service (though note that any TVs Apple sells would have to have an ATSC tuner -- that's mandated by FCC -- and I'm sure it would also have HDMI ports for connecting other components).
Prodding all of us into the IPTV future we know is coming would be very Apple-like, but it has its challenges. First and foremost would be to provide a mix of on-demand and live programming that is good enough to satisfy the needs of people who currently subscribe to cable or satellite. This will be difficult. The networks and studios that create television programming make huge amounts of money from the cable and satellite companies, and they're not in any hurry to mess that up. Apps like HBO GO are awesome, but there's a reason why they require to pay your cable provider for a subscription: they absolutely do not want to cannibalize that revenue stream. Unless there is a huge amount of money involved, those networks and studios aren't going to do all that much more than what they're doing already with Hulu and Netflix.
Further complicating things is the fact that the companies providing consumers the internet connections they'll be using to watch all this TV typically have their own competing television services. And guess what, they absolutely do not want to become dumb pipes and will do everything they can (including implementing even stricter bandwidth caps) to keep people paying for TV.
I don't know what Apple will ultimately do, but I'm pretty sure they don't want to sell a TV that you'll just hook up to a cable box. Think about it: how often do you use the interface on your TV versus the one on your settop box or Blu-ray player or game console? No, if they're going to get into this market and offer a TV with a great user experience they're going to have to change how we consume video. Building a TV with an amazing interface is meaningless if all you do is use it as a monitor connected to somebody else's box. I doubt they'd enter the market unless they felt they could do it right, and to do it right they need to challenge the way we get TV today.
Discussion about
For Apple, making a TV would be easy. It's changing TV that's hard.
I disagree. It doesn't actually have to do any of that. In fact, all Apple has to do to make a successful TV is to use it's already great design from laptops and Cinema displays (now the Thunderbolt display) and make a larger screen. People will line up just to buy that...especially in black.
As for content...now you're barking up the interesting tree. I've put a lot of thought into how Apple could make a successful TV business for at least 5 years. With iTunes alone they could stream so much content it wouldn't even be funny. Add on apps, and suddenly nearly everything is available. The problem with that way of thinking is that Apple wouldn't be remaking the market. Samsung, Sony and others already have TVs that do exactly that, using apps to stream video and music and photos.
No, Apple wants to remake the TV experience. Just look at Apple TV. The system is simple, intuitive, has a tiny remote with just a few buttons, etc. That's what Apple wants to do, except not on just a box. On the screen. Which means should Apple pursue it, as Steve Jobs wanted to (undoubtedly for years...remember, he argued that the Motorola Razr was junk way back when it was first being announced), then it is going to take a lot of time to set a foundation for all of these changes. They aren't going to stop cable...they are going to use their power to muscle in proper TV, TV as they see fit, out of the cable companies.
What that means is no more cable boxes, no more giant remotes, and no more dealing with your cable provider directly. It'll be just like the iPhone, where you can do everything through Apple, or if you want, buy the products through the provider too. But Apple will be your one-stop shop.
Online only is out of the question, at least until service providers decide to stream everything through the internet instead of through their systems. Apple isn't going to be able to change that. The infrastructure is too laid out, too entrenched. No, they'll work with current providers, or perhaps only certain providers as they did with the iPhone. Chances are the same thing will happen. Only one major company will be interested in working with Apple (probably AT&T), and the TVs will work with people's current cable boxes or without a box through the service provider directly.
However, considering Apple's size compared to the pre-iPhone era, chances are they won't be locked in with one provider. Likely, providers will be too scared to not accept Apple's terms, as ridiculous as they will undoubtedly be.
As for content...now you're barking up the interesting tree. I've put a lot of thought into how Apple could make a successful TV business for at least 5 years. With iTunes alone they could stream so much content it wouldn't even be funny. Add on apps, and suddenly nearly everything is available. The problem with that way of thinking is that Apple wouldn't be remaking the market. Samsung, Sony and others already have TVs that do exactly that, using apps to stream video and music and photos.
No, Apple wants to remake the TV experience. Just look at Apple TV. The system is simple, intuitive, has a tiny remote with just a few buttons, etc. That's what Apple wants to do, except not on just a box. On the screen. Which means should Apple pursue it, as Steve Jobs wanted to (undoubtedly for years...remember, he argued that the Motorola Razr was junk way back when it was first being announced), then it is going to take a lot of time to set a foundation for all of these changes. They aren't going to stop cable...they are going to use their power to muscle in proper TV, TV as they see fit, out of the cable companies.
What that means is no more cable boxes, no more giant remotes, and no more dealing with your cable provider directly. It'll be just like the iPhone, where you can do everything through Apple, or if you want, buy the products through the provider too. But Apple will be your one-stop shop.
Online only is out of the question, at least until service providers decide to stream everything through the internet instead of through their systems. Apple isn't going to be able to change that. The infrastructure is too laid out, too entrenched. No, they'll work with current providers, or perhaps only certain providers as they did with the iPhone. Chances are the same thing will happen. Only one major company will be interested in working with Apple (probably AT&T), and the TVs will work with people's current cable boxes or without a box through the service provider directly.
However, considering Apple's size compared to the pre-iPhone era, chances are they won't be locked in with one provider. Likely, providers will be too scared to not accept Apple's terms, as ridiculous as they will undoubtedly be.
Considering that the majority of people still subscribe to Cable Television, I'd love to see Apple go out and get deals with all of the major Cable Providers: Bright House, TWC, AT&T, etc... and build a DVR/Cable Tuner into the TV so that a separate cable box is not necessary.
Compared to something like LG Smart TV, I can totally envision an Apple TV that is WAY better than any other TV on the market simply because of revolutionary software. Apple has a huge market here if they can make an all integrated HDTV that allows you to connect to your Cable provider, tie in all of your online services, and manage iTunes content.
I could totally be down for something like that, but I don't think I would spring for an Apple TV (that is likely to be a tad more expensive than other options) if all it did was incorporate Apple TV into an LED TV set. If it includes Siri (or some other amazing feature) and allows me to navigate TV/DVR/my media with my voice, I can't foresee myself not owning one.
Compared to something like LG Smart TV, I can totally envision an Apple TV that is WAY better than any other TV on the market simply because of revolutionary software. Apple has a huge market here if they can make an all integrated HDTV that allows you to connect to your Cable provider, tie in all of your online services, and manage iTunes content.
I could totally be down for something like that, but I don't think I would spring for an Apple TV (that is likely to be a tad more expensive than other options) if all it did was incorporate Apple TV into an LED TV set. If it includes Siri (or some other amazing feature) and allows me to navigate TV/DVR/my media with my voice, I can't foresee myself not owning one.
You're right... They need to do more, than just create another TV with apps. Whatever Apple does, it needs to replace the cable box, or they won't be able to justify the inflated cost over their competitors. If they can come out an say, "The Apple HDTV is more expensive, BUT it replaces this, and this, and this, and this, AND is dead simple to use." Then they have something.
Exactly! It's no use to me to buy a TV that's just my TV with Apple TV incorporated. It has to be something more.
I'd like to be the one that doubts apple can make a great TV, or rather will make a great TV on release. Apple had a rocky start with music players (Mac only, firewire, expensive) but fixed it over time. Same with phones (missing basic features: No 3G, Apps, Picture Messages).
Further to that they've had some monumental flops with attempts to move into this space before (anyone remember the hifi? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_Hi-Fi ) I couldn’t even find it on gdgt.
The only apple product that's been really good in version one I can recall is the iPad. And it could be argued that the iPad was a refinement of the iPhone.
Apple have demonstrated they can make expensive screens, and do streaming media, beyond that I am left with a lot of doubt that that they can pull together the rest of the equation. I'd definitely not want to be an early adopter. Possibly generation two.
Further to that they've had some monumental flops with attempts to move into this space before (anyone remember the hifi? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_Hi-Fi ) I couldn’t even find it on gdgt.
The only apple product that's been really good in version one I can recall is the iPad. And it could be argued that the iPad was a refinement of the iPhone.
Apple have demonstrated they can make expensive screens, and do streaming media, beyond that I am left with a lot of doubt that that they can pull together the rest of the equation. I'd definitely not want to be an early adopter. Possibly generation two.
I have doubts about the success of this hypothetical product, but do you think that the first 2 generations of Apple set top boxes could have allowed them to expose and leap the hurdles that you mentioned with regards to the PMP and Smartphone launches?
What Do I Have
When you look at your TV, what do you see? I see a TV(of course), receiver, DVD player, satellite receiver, an Apple TV, Xbox, Wii, sub-wolfer, three speakers (part of the surround system), several remote controls, a router, an Airport Express, and a mess of wires. The TV has its own interface for making adjustments like screen size, color, internet based applications (which we never use), ect. The satellite receiver has its own interface for changing programs, DVR, ect. The Apple TV has its own interface for streaming and renting movies, watching podcasts, etc. It's a wonder we can usually work most everything. My guess is that my setup is not too different from most others.
What Do I Want
If I could get rid of most of the boxes, get rid of the wires, get rid of the remote controls, get rid of all the different user interfaces, I would be ecstatic!
Can Apple Give Me What I Want?
Maybe. Bose has a product called VideoWave which is a significant and pricey step in the right direction. Bose, however is constrained because it has no "eco-system." This is where Apple can make a major difference and gives it a good shot at being able to do so. Imagine getting a TV with DVR and satellite or cable box functionality built in (I doubt that even a huge company like Apple can make the needed agreements with all of the various services, but who knows). Imagine not having to have external speakers. Imagine having a TV that can play all of your media. Imagine having a TV system with a simple interface and a single simple remote or maybe no remote control at all. Let's just say that if Apple can't do this, then I doubt that anybody can.
When you look at your TV, what do you see? I see a TV(of course), receiver, DVD player, satellite receiver, an Apple TV, Xbox, Wii, sub-wolfer, three speakers (part of the surround system), several remote controls, a router, an Airport Express, and a mess of wires. The TV has its own interface for making adjustments like screen size, color, internet based applications (which we never use), ect. The satellite receiver has its own interface for changing programs, DVR, ect. The Apple TV has its own interface for streaming and renting movies, watching podcasts, etc. It's a wonder we can usually work most everything. My guess is that my setup is not too different from most others.
What Do I Want
If I could get rid of most of the boxes, get rid of the wires, get rid of the remote controls, get rid of all the different user interfaces, I would be ecstatic!
Can Apple Give Me What I Want?
Maybe. Bose has a product called VideoWave which is a significant and pricey step in the right direction. Bose, however is constrained because it has no "eco-system." This is where Apple can make a major difference and gives it a good shot at being able to do so. Imagine getting a TV with DVR and satellite or cable box functionality built in (I doubt that even a huge company like Apple can make the needed agreements with all of the various services, but who knows). Imagine not having to have external speakers. Imagine having a TV that can play all of your media. Imagine having a TV system with a simple interface and a single simple remote or maybe no remote control at all. Let's just say that if Apple can't do this, then I doubt that anybody can.
I wonder how Hulu fits in to all of this. Hulu is the essentially the content providers venturing out on their own, envisioning a world without the cable and sat companies. Apple buying half of Hulu and jumping into bed with them could be the ultimate realization of what Hulu was supposed to be.
I feel like Netflix has a similar vision, and they just stumbled trying to go streaming-only, so perhaps a joint venture of Apple, Hulu and Netflix? That's probably dreaming too big, but man if they could pull that off....
The big roadblock might be Comcast's merger with NBCUniversal, which is part owner of Hulu. But hey, if Comcast hasn't already found a way to kill off Hulu, maybe there's hope yet.
I feel like Netflix has a similar vision, and they just stumbled trying to go streaming-only, so perhaps a joint venture of Apple, Hulu and Netflix? That's probably dreaming too big, but man if they could pull that off....
The big roadblock might be Comcast's merger with NBCUniversal, which is part owner of Hulu. But hey, if Comcast hasn't already found a way to kill off Hulu, maybe there's hope yet.
Just seems to me that TVs are sold at fairly small margins. I don't see how Apple is going to convince many people to buy an overpriced TV set by the droves. Even if it does look amazing. And I also would hate to have a White TV set. I can't help but think Apple will make it in white. Yuck.
Apple TV kind of sucks too. I chose a Roku box over the Apple TV. They are both very affordable, but I just had no interest in Apple TV and having to deal with iTunes and such. I'd rather buy and rent content on my xBox 360.
Apple TV kind of sucks too. I chose a Roku box over the Apple TV. They are both very affordable, but I just had no interest in Apple TV and having to deal with iTunes and such. I'd rather buy and rent content on my xBox 360.
I'm not sure if I'm missing something here, but surely all Apple have to do is convince cable and satellite providers that laying cables or sending up satellites is expensive and to provide their current content over the Internet? Then Apple can make a TV that works with any provider, any country. In fact, not just Apple, but any manufacturer. Apple + co get to layer apps over the TV, cable and satellite companies don't lose rental. Hell Apple + co can even promise to stop people from changing the channel during the adverts!
Even more exciting, current TV is one way. Open up two-way TV over Internet and the TV companies will be wetting themselves with interactive + shopping services, cloud based PVR and most importantly viewer statistics! Mega money.
Even more exciting, current TV is one way. Open up two-way TV over Internet and the TV companies will be wetting themselves with interactive + shopping services, cloud based PVR and most importantly viewer statistics! Mega money.
If they decide to get into this space beyond Apple TV, my guess is that they will keep it a "hobby" and go the IPTV route. Just like how they got rid of the floppy disk drive before it was time, they will push forward ahead of the current trends, and wait for everyone to catch up.
And that's a big "If."
And that's a big "If."
Steve Jobs actually said some revealing things about Apple's TV efforts in at least two of his interviews with Walt Mossberg at D: events. It's quite clear that Apple wants to do for TV what they did for music, but that they're up against some major hurdles in the way the industry is structured. Steve references CableCards, cable billing systems, and the subsidized set-top box model all as major issues to overcome. But to hear Steve talk, it's clearly an area Apple has been working on very seriously for a long time, and probably still is.
I'm wondering if they're going to try and change the TV industry like Google tried or just create an internet rich TV to compete with regular manufactures. The difference would be that instead of relying on services Apple would build the AppleTV OS into the TV set so that they could still make money by allowing the user to buy content through iTunes right from the TV. I know they're essentially doing this now with the AppleTV but I'm wondering if building the OS into a panel would give them are larger reach with the market.
My issues with the idea of Apple making a TV are more practical, mainly regarding screen size. The rumors are saying that they'd make up to a 50" model, and while I'm sure that's easily the top end of the average screen size purchased by consumers, I won't ever get anything less than a 60" TV :) I've had my 60" screen for 5 years now, and there's no looking back for me. I fear that this will be another "Apple knows best" situation, and that larger screen sizes simply won't be available.
But beyond that, wouldn't they have to either support a fairly large range of screen sizes, or make the Apple TV have the exact same capabilities as the full television product? It seems to me that they would...
But beyond that, wouldn't they have to either support a fairly large range of screen sizes, or make the Apple TV have the exact same capabilities as the full television product? It seems to me that they would...
I'm sure the main thing Apple wants to create is a TV solution, not necessarily an actual TV set. It would be far easier to create a beefed-up Apple TV (as in the small set-top box) with a fleshed-out TV content solution, and just have an HDMI-out on the back. They want to make the process of finding and watching video content painless and enjoyable, seamlessly folding in the content that everyone wants most, which is currently guarded by the cable (and satellite) companies. I have no doubt that that's the problem Apple is trying to solve. They call Apple TV a "hobby" precisely because it doesn't encompass that "real TV" content.
With that said, I tend to agree with the person who said (elsewhere) that Apple simply might not be able to resist designing a beautiful slab of hardware that would be the focal point of your living room.
With that said, I tend to agree with the person who said (elsewhere) that Apple simply might not be able to resist designing a beautiful slab of hardware that would be the focal point of your living room.
I think they might be able to get away with ignoring OTA programming, look at the TiVo Premiere Elite as an indicator that the FCC does in fact give waivers on that front. I also think, that the only thing that would make an Apple made, 50" screen with IPTV need to pass through the tuner regulations would be if Apple called it a TV and I think its likely that while it would function as a TV, apple would define a new space for the device, much like they redefined the tablet space with the iPad. No idea if this device will exist or be as much of a success as recent times have been for Apple.
this ties in well with an article on are technica last month about owning the stack: j.mp/s7o9Lu
the cable companies have owned a bottleneck in the TV/Internet stack for so long that it's going to have to take a special effort to dislodge them. If anyone can figure this out, it's Apple, and once they do, the floodgates will have opened. they key is to either give TV/internet companies incentives to allow this new TV service, or to somehow bypass the companies and make them irrelevant, then have them come back begging to be just plain old tubes afterwards.
the cable companies have owned a bottleneck in the TV/Internet stack for so long that it's going to have to take a special effort to dislodge them. If anyone can figure this out, it's Apple, and once they do, the floodgates will have opened. they key is to either give TV/internet companies incentives to allow this new TV service, or to somehow bypass the companies and make them irrelevant, then have them come back begging to be just plain old tubes afterwards.
I see this going down the same way the iPod did. First they have come out with THE killer TV interface that everyone didn't know they needed but are sure that they now want. Then, after they've convinced everyone they have THE best TV user interface in the market, they can launch their own television. They also have to demonstrate, however, that the commitment goes beyond the TV hardware and will roll out to all Apple displays, cinematic or laptop.(updated) In other words, revive Front-row but make it the same on all devices, AppleTV, Mac, CinemaDisplay, iPod, iPhone, iPad. This way content providers can really start to see the $s roll in and apple adds millions of customers overnight. Lastly, they need to come out with great partners that take advantage of their airplay capabilities. While they could very well be looking to take over the gaming market by having a console included with the TV thanks to airplay (iPad 2 Real Racing OTA anyone?), it would be very cool if they could get the XBOX or even Nintendo to support their airplay technology. Personally, as long as they did all of these things and added room for inputs (for say a nostalgic trip back to the LaserDisc era), I would think that Apple could easily do to the TV industry what it did to the music industry.
The console over airplay isn't quite there yet. One of the first things I tried with iOS 5 :)
I was looking foward to using the screen mirror over airplay as a 'sort of' console, but it's laggy for me in most games. I suspect that it's processing on the iPad end thats killing it. The things that have the most trouble are not large movements, but lots of 3D. For instance the slow moving intro to Dead Space drops miles of frames every time.
Possibly it could work better with iPad3.
I was looking foward to using the screen mirror over airplay as a 'sort of' console, but it's laggy for me in most games. I suspect that it's processing on the iPad end thats killing it. The things that have the most trouble are not large movements, but lots of 3D. For instance the slow moving intro to Dead Space drops miles of frames every time.
Possibly it could work better with iPad3.
Apple doesn't like sharing the sandbox. I would expect an Apple branded TV to follow the iMac model, fewer cables. Idealy the device would be wireless, though they would include an ethernet port, and while it would include the mandated ATSC port its main purpose would be to leverage the iTunes library. This sounds like an Apple TV integrated into a good looking TV, so the selling point has to be the UI/OS and apps. Siri will probably feature prominently, as will some sort of content discovery system.
HDMI, though? Nay. All Thunderbolt. I could even see them opting to attach that ATSC tuner to some sort of internal antenna configuration so the whole device is free of any interaction with other services.
I'm most curious about the body. What sort of frame would they design? Johnny Ives minimalism could be detrimental in a market where the norm is simple and elegant. I don't expect 1st gen iMac-esque color palettes, and it would take a lot of aluminum to house a 40+" TV, but maybe white plastic. It will certainly look good.
Pricing will be interesting, too. In the 40-60" size you see a huge variety of prices, based on features and quality, so charging a premium for the TV won't really be an issue. But TV's are such a democratic thing that I could see, perhaps over time, a move for a discounted model (a la iPhone 3GS).
What would be the totally wild out of left field move, though? Making a deal with Verizon FIOS and Comcast for TV's subsidized through a contract. It would make putting up with Comcast a lot easier if the user experience was driven by Apple.
HDMI, though? Nay. All Thunderbolt. I could even see them opting to attach that ATSC tuner to some sort of internal antenna configuration so the whole device is free of any interaction with other services.
I'm most curious about the body. What sort of frame would they design? Johnny Ives minimalism could be detrimental in a market where the norm is simple and elegant. I don't expect 1st gen iMac-esque color palettes, and it would take a lot of aluminum to house a 40+" TV, but maybe white plastic. It will certainly look good.
Pricing will be interesting, too. In the 40-60" size you see a huge variety of prices, based on features and quality, so charging a premium for the TV won't really be an issue. But TV's are such a democratic thing that I could see, perhaps over time, a move for a discounted model (a la iPhone 3GS).
What would be the totally wild out of left field move, though? Making a deal with Verizon FIOS and Comcast for TV's subsidized through a contract. It would make putting up with Comcast a lot easier if the user experience was driven by Apple.
Apple's way is to take an existing market and redo it in a new way that they believe makes it better. If they do a TV at all, it would have to be as much a departure from current TV design and feature concepts as the iPad was from Windows Tablets. Otherwise, I can't see them wasting the considerable R&D time and money. If they do manage to pull it off, you better believe it will only have one Thunderbolt port... maybe two for daisy-chaining. If you are hoping for HDMI, Component, or even Composite, I think you may not have a very good understanding of Apple's mindset towards product design. Obviously, many of us will consider it ridiculous to not be able to just plug our devices into it, but that is exactly what Steve would have wanted... a clean, minimalist TV stand with only 1 cable for power. Marketing would have talked him into including a Thunderbolt port so people could hook up Mac minis, but I can assure you he would have argued that it was not necessary since people could use AirPlay instead. They most likely would have talked him into including an ethernet port as well for people who do not have wifi... or possibly a small brick instead that would provide a powerline adapter so the TV could get its power and network connection over the single cord.
If what you want is a TV, rest assured that any AppleTV will not be for you. It will be for the average consumer who just wants to watch streamed content and do video calls to their friends and family who also have one. This will be just another device for the iTunes ecosystem, I'd bet money on it.
If what you want is a TV, rest assured that any AppleTV will not be for you. It will be for the average consumer who just wants to watch streamed content and do video calls to their friends and family who also have one. This will be just another device for the iTunes ecosystem, I'd bet money on it.
What about using all that cash to buy Comcast or one of the satellite providers (Dish because of the Slingbox tech?)? I'd bet on Comcast because they get a cable company and an ISP in one acquisition. As a last resort they could just buy (or make a deal with) an ISP that has a buttload of dark fiber and go all IPTV.
I don't think that if they do a TV it'll be anything like Google's idea of integrating internet video with the cable box. If there's one thing Apple doesn't do well, it is working with other people's tech.
I believe number 3 is the most likely scenario. They have a budding relationship with the video content industry (as begrudging as it might be) with their iTunes rental and purchase models. I think the next logical step is to get the content industry to bypass the cable industry all together by convincing them that Apple can get just as many viewers and purchaser's of Hollywood's content as the cable industry can. I have no insight into how much the cable industry pays for content, but I can imagine Apple being able to pay a comparable amount given that Apple doesn't have to worry about as much of the infrastructure required to get it to the user (since the cable industry will still be providing your internet connection).
Remember, the cable industry doesn't control the content, they just control the largest method of distributing that content (and they still will to a large extent given it'll be going over your internet connection), and hence have historically had much more sway with the content industry since they could get the most viewers. As that starts to change with the increasing number of alternatives, hopefully their sway will steadily decrease, so that other players can secure more deals to distribute content in more innovative ways.
That's not to say the cable industry will just let this happen. Why do you think they are starting to brainwash people with data caps? Data caps have nothing at all to do with capacity, and everything to do with the carrier industry maintaining control. Frankly it's identical in the wireless world. If AT&T says that 98% of users never go over 2GB, then why do 100% of users need to be limited to 2GB? Control. This is a not-so-subtle way to get people to pay attention to their data usage, to subliminally get you to watch one less piece of media provided by someone besides the carrier. Case in point, AT&T's U-Verse service, which works over IP, doesn't count towards your U-Verse broadband cap, but any media you watch from a competitor's service (i.e., Netflix, Zune, iTunes), most certainly does.
But, Apple entering this space is certainly a welcome thing by me. The more heavyweights wanting to go toe-to-toe with the carrier industry the better. Hopefully more of these companies will realize where the cable industry is heading and work together to stop it. Netflix and it's public disclosure of carrier caps and whatnot is another step in the right direction, but I think they need to be doing a heck of a lot more than that. Maybe Apple will help get things rolling a bit faster and can shake things up as they did with the music industry.
I believe number 3 is the most likely scenario. They have a budding relationship with the video content industry (as begrudging as it might be) with their iTunes rental and purchase models. I think the next logical step is to get the content industry to bypass the cable industry all together by convincing them that Apple can get just as many viewers and purchaser's of Hollywood's content as the cable industry can. I have no insight into how much the cable industry pays for content, but I can imagine Apple being able to pay a comparable amount given that Apple doesn't have to worry about as much of the infrastructure required to get it to the user (since the cable industry will still be providing your internet connection).
Remember, the cable industry doesn't control the content, they just control the largest method of distributing that content (and they still will to a large extent given it'll be going over your internet connection), and hence have historically had much more sway with the content industry since they could get the most viewers. As that starts to change with the increasing number of alternatives, hopefully their sway will steadily decrease, so that other players can secure more deals to distribute content in more innovative ways.
That's not to say the cable industry will just let this happen. Why do you think they are starting to brainwash people with data caps? Data caps have nothing at all to do with capacity, and everything to do with the carrier industry maintaining control. Frankly it's identical in the wireless world. If AT&T says that 98% of users never go over 2GB, then why do 100% of users need to be limited to 2GB? Control. This is a not-so-subtle way to get people to pay attention to their data usage, to subliminally get you to watch one less piece of media provided by someone besides the carrier. Case in point, AT&T's U-Verse service, which works over IP, doesn't count towards your U-Verse broadband cap, but any media you watch from a competitor's service (i.e., Netflix, Zune, iTunes), most certainly does.
But, Apple entering this space is certainly a welcome thing by me. The more heavyweights wanting to go toe-to-toe with the carrier industry the better. Hopefully more of these companies will realize where the cable industry is heading and work together to stop it. Netflix and it's public disclosure of carrier caps and whatnot is another step in the right direction, but I think they need to be doing a heck of a lot more than that. Maybe Apple will help get things rolling a bit faster and can shake things up as they did with the music industry.
Going the IPTV route seems to be the most logical, in an apple sort of way. I could see it connecting with your current tv solution in addition to whatever Apple offers, though who's going to pay for cable twice?
I do like the idea of an Apple IPTV, but I also don't like it. Apple has no qualms about censoring or restricting content they don't like. So does that mean no Cinemax, no adult PPV, nothing over PG-13/TV-MA?
Be interesting to see what they come up with. I'd be particularly interested to see how an Apple TV solution works with other iDevices. Streaming my live tv to my iPad or iPhone would be an awesome feature and a huge selling point for me
I do like the idea of an Apple IPTV, but I also don't like it. Apple has no qualms about censoring or restricting content they don't like. So does that mean no Cinemax, no adult PPV, nothing over PG-13/TV-MA?
Be interesting to see what they come up with. I'd be particularly interested to see how an Apple TV solution works with other iDevices. Streaming my live tv to my iPad or iPhone would be an awesome feature and a huge selling point for me
I've been thinking about this a lot in the last couple of weeks. My cable bill is going to $77 for digital cable, add $6 for sports and dv,r taxes etc, and you are way over $100. That's a lot of money laying on the table for Apple. You can buy a lot of shows and movies from iTunes with that.
What is the one think that would get people like me (men that like sports) to cut the cable? ESPN, which is a Disney company. Maybe that is what Steve/Apple worked out?
Whether Apple would add dvr functions or provide a cloud dvr function for OTA recording is uncertain. It does not fit into their model, but would certainly hasten adoption if there was no charge for streaming the major networks. Maybe you finally get a la carte cable, $2 a month for amc, etc or just purchase individual shows.
Whether you could add an apple tv box to a system or need a new tv for this is another question. If it could be accomplished by a $99 box, that would make Hulu's business model look pretty shaky. I surf less and less these days. This could be the time for on demand watching.
Give me ESPN and I will give cord cutting a shot!
What is the one think that would get people like me (men that like sports) to cut the cable? ESPN, which is a Disney company. Maybe that is what Steve/Apple worked out?
Whether Apple would add dvr functions or provide a cloud dvr function for OTA recording is uncertain. It does not fit into their model, but would certainly hasten adoption if there was no charge for streaming the major networks. Maybe you finally get a la carte cable, $2 a month for amc, etc or just purchase individual shows.
Whether you could add an apple tv box to a system or need a new tv for this is another question. If it could be accomplished by a $99 box, that would make Hulu's business model look pretty shaky. I surf less and less these days. This could be the time for on demand watching.
Give me ESPN and I will give cord cutting a shot!
I think a problem with this is that "AMC or whatever" will cost closer to $10 dollars a month than 2.
The biggest problem I see with cord cutting at this time is that in an American household with 3 people (3.2 according to Wolfram Alpha), if they total watch 15 shows a week, if they were to buy them with current pricing from iTunes, that would be 45 bucks a week for HD content. Obviously there are free alternatives, but not necessarily legal or in HD but that has to have been something that was considered by the Apple & TV executives that were involved in this.
The biggest problem I see with cord cutting at this time is that in an American household with 3 people (3.2 according to Wolfram Alpha), if they total watch 15 shows a week, if they were to buy them with current pricing from iTunes, that would be 45 bucks a week for HD content. Obviously there are free alternatives, but not necessarily legal or in HD but that has to have been something that was considered by the Apple & TV executives that were involved in this.
I think Peter is right. Entertainment comes from a lot of sources. Just focusing on one type such as what Apple TV does. Simply does not make for good sales of TV. Its a nice addition but its no big seller. Finding common ground with multiple content providers would be almost impossible even for Apple. But the other problem as we have seen with 3D TV's is the big question. Can Apple keep a TV at a price point in a highly competitive market?
There is a chicken and egg problem for Apple if they are serious about moving content. I make the distinction here to include first run television and movies in the same breath. Live sports and concerts are a different breed.
Apple needs to do two things at once. Convince program providers that allowing an only streaming option for their content would not eat into existing revenue. At the same time connivence the public that they would not be losing anything by moving away from cable/sat and purchasing a new way to watch.
These seem mutually exclusive no?
The trick to both is content. If there is compelling content, people will watch. Apple has to secure some kind of all you can watch any time you want to watch it, content to attract people to a new device. People do not want to pay per program for content. Unless that price was so cheap as to make it attractive say 25-50¢/show. This seems unlikely. This content does not have to be exclusive it just has to be good. As in good streaming quality and good shows/movies. It also has to be convenient. No more going to this site for movies, using xbox for this, using bluray for that. A content consolidation device. That will attract the consumer. There also has to be some assurance that the service will not fold in a few months.
Getting the consumer to pay something that the providers want will be the hard part. This is where Apple can prevail where other efforts have failed.
Steve, we miss you already.
Apple needs to do two things at once. Convince program providers that allowing an only streaming option for their content would not eat into existing revenue. At the same time connivence the public that they would not be losing anything by moving away from cable/sat and purchasing a new way to watch.
These seem mutually exclusive no?
The trick to both is content. If there is compelling content, people will watch. Apple has to secure some kind of all you can watch any time you want to watch it, content to attract people to a new device. People do not want to pay per program for content. Unless that price was so cheap as to make it attractive say 25-50¢/show. This seems unlikely. This content does not have to be exclusive it just has to be good. As in good streaming quality and good shows/movies. It also has to be convenient. No more going to this site for movies, using xbox for this, using bluray for that. A content consolidation device. That will attract the consumer. There also has to be some assurance that the service will not fold in a few months.
Getting the consumer to pay something that the providers want will be the hard part. This is where Apple can prevail where other efforts have failed.
Steve, we miss you already.
The problem is that a streaming only option WOULD eat into their revenue. Rebroadcast agreements are slowly replacing advertising as their primary source of income. The cost to cable and satellite providers to get you the service you're paying for has been increasing dramatically over the past few years. And it's been increasing far above what customers are seeing in their rates.
$0.25-$0.50 per show sounds appealing, but lets do the math. A typical cable provider will cost about $70 for expanded cable and a cable box at full price. In a typical month, that's about $2.34/day. At $0.50 a show, that's a little over 4 shows per day. Factor in that your typically network television show is about a half hour long, that's 2 hours of TV a day at your proposed rates. And, if the show sucks, you can't change the channel.
Even 100 channels broadcasting only 16 hours/day, based on your suggested pricing, would cost $400 per DAY. That's $12,000 per month.
There's way too much greed in the entertainment industry. Multi-million dollar salaries in sports, TV, and movies is passed on to the network, which passes it on to the cable/satellite provider, who pass it on to the customer. At which point, the customer leaves their current provider for a new one, taking advantage of new customer rates (often at a loss to the company). This yearly switch then turns into providers typically only offering discounted rates under a two year contract with a near full rate price hike on year two and huge early termination fees to recoup their loss. Other providers are forced to only offer 2 year deals as well as they cannot afford 1 year of a customer, 2 years without and this at least keeps the same income that they were getting previously from the people who switched every year. Customers then get upset with their satellite and cable providers and go to Hulu and/or Netflix which then further raises costs as networks can no longer rely on traditional income. They then pass this rise in cost along to content providers who are forced to raise their rates (cable/satellite) or otherwise start charging for what was a free service (Hulu).
We as consumers are demonizing and attacking the wrong people, and looking for solutions that benefit those that created the problem in the first place. We SHOULD be going after the networks for price gouging us.
$0.25-$0.50 per show sounds appealing, but lets do the math. A typical cable provider will cost about $70 for expanded cable and a cable box at full price. In a typical month, that's about $2.34/day. At $0.50 a show, that's a little over 4 shows per day. Factor in that your typically network television show is about a half hour long, that's 2 hours of TV a day at your proposed rates. And, if the show sucks, you can't change the channel.
Even 100 channels broadcasting only 16 hours/day, based on your suggested pricing, would cost $400 per DAY. That's $12,000 per month.
There's way too much greed in the entertainment industry. Multi-million dollar salaries in sports, TV, and movies is passed on to the network, which passes it on to the cable/satellite provider, who pass it on to the customer. At which point, the customer leaves their current provider for a new one, taking advantage of new customer rates (often at a loss to the company). This yearly switch then turns into providers typically only offering discounted rates under a two year contract with a near full rate price hike on year two and huge early termination fees to recoup their loss. Other providers are forced to only offer 2 year deals as well as they cannot afford 1 year of a customer, 2 years without and this at least keeps the same income that they were getting previously from the people who switched every year. Customers then get upset with their satellite and cable providers and go to Hulu and/or Netflix which then further raises costs as networks can no longer rely on traditional income. They then pass this rise in cost along to content providers who are forced to raise their rates (cable/satellite) or otherwise start charging for what was a free service (Hulu).
We as consumers are demonizing and attacking the wrong people, and looking for solutions that benefit those that created the problem in the first place. We SHOULD be going after the networks for price gouging us.
I think this goes to the heart of the matter, I wrote in the piece that "The networks and studios that create television programming make huge amounts of money from the cable and satellite companies, and they're not in any hurry to mess that up." There is simply too much money involved for them to offer a cheap online alternative to what they have going now.
I think the "App" model is the way to go. If you like "Homeland", then you buy the homeland app. If you like the NFL, then you buy one of the NFL apps, "audio only" $, re-broadcast $$, or "Live"$$$. Apps could have a free or low cost version, with commercials, and a premium version, without. All are IPTV. An Apple TV would also have storage so that programming could be D/L automatically during the night when bandwidth is cheaper. The Apple TV would probably also include legacy connections. All iMacs will be AppleTV's.
Apple will absolutely begin to sell its own all-in-one flat screen beautiful TV in 2012 -- and it will be called "iTV" (to distance its entirely new "real" TV product from its current Apple TV "hobby"). And, the integrated software/services piece will be beautiful -- and will be the IPTV vision absolutely. At the same time, absolutely your existing cable/satellite service will be seamlessly integrated into the overall user experience. Apple doesn't need to own the entire content piece itself -- it just needs to "present" it well and cohesively -- which it absolutely will do. AND, remember -- and this is critical -- APPLE MAKES MONEY IN SELLING ITS HARDWARE! The services piece is simply the Trojan Horse! And, Apple will be able to sell its beautiful new iTVs at much higher margins than other "commodity" TV sellers. Bottom line -- if Apple builds it, the Apple faithful will come ....
As I just commented on another site, I don't think Apple will make just a nice HDTV. It's highly unlikely that they will be able to compete with current HDTV prices yet offer an outstanding product worthy of what is expected from Apple. I really think the new iMac will be the Apple TV. It will be able to boot into iOS and lots of content will be available through apps and the iTunes ecosystem. People would pay $2500 for a 30"+ Siri-enabled iMac, but not necessarily for a TV, even a nicely designed one. Computing is moving to mobile, personal computers are used less & less so it would make sense to move the iMac to the center of the living room and be the family computer, TV, gaming center and all around home automation hub in the future.
Disagree. Apple enjoys price premiums in other commodity markets... Why is TV any different? The most overlooked technology not brought up in any of the comments thus far is the Retina Display. If Apple can make a viewing experience viable on a 3.5" screen, why wouldn't there be something revolutionary for a 50" display???
BTW, this -- possibly in combination with iPhones, iPads or iTouch devices (w/Airplay & Siri too?) -- would remove barriers to selection of how we select what to watch, as Apple could meld the touch, compute, lean-back experiences into one. And when (not if) that happens, the content smorgasbord is on.
Cable providers are already at a disadvantage with certain demographics as it is (YouTube, Facebook, Hulu, Netflix streaming content is all portable, and available whenever and wherever I want it) and these companies have been pursuing TV Everywhere strategies to solve for some of this reality for years now.
Apple's biggest opportunity is in disproving the riff, 57 channels and Nothing On (Springsteen, 1992). They can introduce contextual content (family pics/videos & video conferencing--arguably what current Apple TV and FaceTime are best at), alongside Premium iTunes content and some sort of regular subscription viewing (the biggest X-factor in this discussion) in a way that doesn't feel silo'ed or amateur. A world with infinite entertainment choice and control, spun correctly (i.e. made to feel simple), is as powerful as it gets.
This conceptualization of the complete experience is squarely in Apple's wheelhouse and arguably the culmination of ecosystem learnings from Music, Phones and Tablets-- not to mention Computing-- from pioneering in these markets over the past four decades.
Last data point-- Apple has been sitting on the sidelines with a massive cash hoard (amusing story this summer illustrating this point: articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/29/business/la-fi-ap...). Unlike Google (buying Motorola, hundreds of startups) or Microsoft (Skype, many other acquisitions), Apple is likely preserving this dry powder for a massive entry into a market that it will reshape in it's image. I would expect that this money is deployed in a way that generates multiples on it's return. TV is likely that market.
BTW, this -- possibly in combination with iPhones, iPads or iTouch devices (w/Airplay & Siri too?) -- would remove barriers to selection of how we select what to watch, as Apple could meld the touch, compute, lean-back experiences into one. And when (not if) that happens, the content smorgasbord is on.
Cable providers are already at a disadvantage with certain demographics as it is (YouTube, Facebook, Hulu, Netflix streaming content is all portable, and available whenever and wherever I want it) and these companies have been pursuing TV Everywhere strategies to solve for some of this reality for years now.
Apple's biggest opportunity is in disproving the riff, 57 channels and Nothing On (Springsteen, 1992). They can introduce contextual content (family pics/videos & video conferencing--arguably what current Apple TV and FaceTime are best at), alongside Premium iTunes content and some sort of regular subscription viewing (the biggest X-factor in this discussion) in a way that doesn't feel silo'ed or amateur. A world with infinite entertainment choice and control, spun correctly (i.e. made to feel simple), is as powerful as it gets.
This conceptualization of the complete experience is squarely in Apple's wheelhouse and arguably the culmination of ecosystem learnings from Music, Phones and Tablets-- not to mention Computing-- from pioneering in these markets over the past four decades.
Last data point-- Apple has been sitting on the sidelines with a massive cash hoard (amusing story this summer illustrating this point: articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/29/business/la-fi-ap...). Unlike Google (buying Motorola, hundreds of startups) or Microsoft (Skype, many other acquisitions), Apple is likely preserving this dry powder for a massive entry into a market that it will reshape in it's image. I would expect that this money is deployed in a way that generates multiples on it's return. TV is likely that market.
I'm no expert but I would guess a 50" retina display would command a much higher price premium than what Apple usually enjoys on smaller devices. Also it seems that they still have problems sourcing retina-like displays for 10" screens so bigger would probably be a couple years off. And I don't think they'll sink their huge cash reserves into TV just like that, if yes maybe they should just acquire one of the bigger panel makers... they buy millions of lcd panels from suppliers for their other products so it doesn't look like they'll go that way either. I can't see people lining up every year for the latest Apple TV if it's even at a slight premium to current TVs.
I agree, just because 3.5" retina displays are available, doesn't mean 50" displays are just a matter of changing where they cut the panels. Manufacturability comes into play, and I mean it's the cost to manufacture 50" retina displays that will kill this idea.
Let Apple just buy one of these cable TV providers? They do have tons of cash.
I don't think Apple would bother to make a device if it didn't have a pretty solid interface and price point that it believed would get at least 5% of the market. The deal killer will be the difficulty for the users to connect with and get to the content. It can be like a GoogleTV overlay on regular Cable broadcasts, but not just simpler connections to "geeky" sources like Amazon Instant Video, Netflix, etc. There are already a bunch of TVs that can do half of those things and a one device (GoogleTV) that does all of them poorly. It has to be as easy (or easier) as what is already out there, plus it has to offer that Apple flare! Voice command, easy setup, and has to look hot!
couldn't the solution be akin to newsstand on iOS5? simply that apple would create a structure within the system for each station's app to cohabitate and interact?
follow this discussion
share:
Products mentioned
42 users following this discussion, including:
This discussion has been viewed 3037 times.
Last activity .