dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2012-09-06 10:00:31: We've noted repeatedly how it's somewhere close to impossible to develop a broadband-based video service that can seriously compete with cable, given the fact the broadcast and cable industry does everything in their power to see you fail. ..

page: 1 · 2 · next

inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK

1 recommendation

inteller

Member

Microsoft is eating their lunch in the living room anyways.

No one will want to play craptastic iPhone games on a large screen and Microsoft is already killing them in the app space with stuff like Crackle and HBO GO. Sure the paywalls suck, but that can change over time. Microsoft was willing to deal with the cable devils in order to get a foothold.

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA

1 recommendation

fuziwuzi

Premium Member

No Crapple!

Meaning, Apple can't get broadcasters, cable companies, and studios to bow down to Apple's proprietary technology to make Apple a defacto "standard" that Apple can patent and threaten everyone else with.
nfotiu
join:2009-01-25

nfotiu

Member

Good

Good, Apple would just find a way to make tv even more expensive and consumer un-friendly.

PhoenixDown
FIOS is Awesome
Premium Member
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY

PhoenixDown

Premium Member

Why can't Apple go solo w/ TV Tuner Card?

Like the subject says -- Apple has enough clout that they should be able to roll it out with a built in, or at a least slot for, a cable tuner card.

If Tivo can do it, I am sure Apple can too and maybe it would help their positioning at the bargaining table.
steven s
Premium Member
join:2002-09-14
Dearborn, MI

steven s to fuziwuzi

Premium Member

to fuziwuzi

Re: No Crapple!

Exactly. The cable industry is already in dire straits in the long run - why would they want to make things even worse for themselves?
Joe12345678
join:2003-07-22
Des Plaines, IL

Joe12345678 to PhoenixDown

Member

to PhoenixDown

Re: Why can't Apple go solo w/ TV Tuner Card?

only will work in the usa and you have to deal with the very UN apple cable consumer support.

SDV systems will need usb ports for the add on SDV tuner.

No VOD , NO or need to call in to order PPV evnets.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170

skeechan

Premium Member

MSOs are afraid of being relevant again

As alternatives grow, they want to take the same tact as the music industry...repel customers, raise prices and hope that customers bend over and take it.

The media industry never learns. Adapt or die.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd

Premium Member

they are also scared of losing box rental revenues. Which is why we do not see an active and wide push for something like DOCSIS for CATV. Basically so anybody could make a box and it would just get a bootfile telling it what channels it can decrypt.

I think True2Way was supposed to be this at launch but it blew up before first stage separation.
Kearnstd

Kearnstd to PhoenixDown

Premium Member

to PhoenixDown

Re: Why can't Apple go solo w/ TV Tuner Card?

There is also the sticky web of patents going with something Tivo style. This is one arena where Apple would have to license things rather than holding all the cards and being able sue everybody who makes a DVR.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170

skeechan to Kearnstd

Premium Member

to Kearnstd

Re: MSOs are afraid of being relevant again

Of course, just like the music industry wanted you to spend $15 for an entire CD just to get one song. That's the reason they won't cut programming retransmit deals and the reason they cap HSI (there is no bandwidth crunch, it's all bull to stop people from using the service to stream video).
apple4ever
join:2002-06-16
Coatesville, PA

apple4ever to steven s

Member

to steven s

Re: No Crapple!

Haha people really believe this?

The cable industry is making it worse for themselves by NOT working with Apple.
apple4ever

apple4ever to fuziwuzi

Member

to fuziwuzi
This post is so full of incorrect information I don't know where to start.
openbox9
Premium Member
join:2004-01-26
71144

openbox9 to PhoenixDown

Premium Member

to PhoenixDown

Re: Why can't Apple go solo w/ TV Tuner Card?

Apple doesn't want to be another Tivo. It wants to pull off a coup in the video space as it did in the music arena. Adding a cable card isn't that big of a deal. "Owning" the living room is.
amungus
Premium Member
join:2004-11-26
America

1 recommendation

amungus

Premium Member

Too late

I'm sorry, but my Win7 Media Center is just fine. Until they can come up with something even half as appealing, I honestly don't care.

It also happens to be, um, a full fledged computer underneath, should I wish to do pretty much anything with...

michieru
Premium Member
join:2009-07-25
Denver, CO

michieru to apple4ever

Premium Member

to apple4ever

Re: No Crapple!

Oh? Why don't you start somewhere and begin to tell us?

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to skeechan

Premium Member

to skeechan

Re: MSOs are afraid of being relevant again

said by skeechan:

As alternatives grow, they want to take the same tact as the music industry...repel customers, raise prices and hope that customers bend over and take it.

The media industry never learns. Adapt or die.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a cord-cutter with regards to TV. But I have to respectfully disagree.

The pay-tv industry still has about 100 million paying customers and only a small number of people, about ~125k, have actually dropped service without going to another provider. Most of the churn in this racket is due to customers dropping expensive service with one provider and trading it for less expensive service with another provider.

»www.reuters.com/article/ ··· 20120802

»Ridiculous

125k potential customers, out of ~100 million, isn't even a statistical blip. Content providers lose nothing by not being bothered to deal with us on terms of our choosing, especially since we quit cable because we do not want to pay a lot of money for content.

The one long-term thing that is working in favor of those of us who cut the cord is that it seems that overall pay-tv subscriber growth is flat, and that gains made by one provider appear to be coming from the expense of another provider. If the trend of endless price hikes continues, simple economics tells us that more people will drop pay tv altogether.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo to PhoenixDown

Member

to PhoenixDown

Re: Why can't Apple go solo w/ TV Tuner Card?

No business cares about clout when it is businesses competing for the $200 billion video market. Letting Apple in means the beginning of the end of the existing model. This is the same reason why streaming and IPTV of channels is the boogie man. It will reshuffle the deck, and the current players all have royal flushes.
Chuck_IV
join:2003-11-18
Connecticut

Chuck_IV

Member

I said this before...

but I believe the only company(s) that will be able to get past the cable/broadcast "blockade" are ones that already OWN a large quantity of the content.

A likely candidate would be Sony and their PS3. They own a large chunk of TV shows as well as a large quantity of movies. If they made the commitment to do it, I believe they could pull it off. I just don't think they are willing to make that move.

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170

skeechan to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102

Re: MSOs are afraid of being relevant again

And there will continue to be cheaper and cheaper providers and the "old model" of charging $100+ for CATV locked to their overpriced hardware will be a distant memory. This news item isn't about cord cutting but MSOs not wanting to open the door to what would amount to be a 'new provider'.

They can be part of that inevitable future or they can be the RIM of the home entertainment industry scrambling to figure out how to respond 3 years too late.

Just like AT&T saw huge growth as a result of having the 'gotta have it device', it only takes one provider, perhaps a DBS provider to do the same, leading a mass exodus if the product isn't a complete piece of poopy. Then suddenly the MSOs will want to be on board just like VZW wanted on board after balking at first.
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium Member
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ

Kearnstd to morbo

Premium Member

to morbo

Re: Why can't Apple go solo w/ TV Tuner Card?

Content will never get cheaper, as a show gets more popular the stars demand more and more money. Some getting over half a million per episode. that money has gotta come from somewhere and unless every single content maker starts to refuse these outrageous salaries they all have to pay it or the big names walk. And as such we have to pay it be it with cable bills or increases in the cost of streaming to pay for the royalties increases.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

1 recommendation

pnh102 to skeechan

Premium Member

to skeechan

Re: MSOs are afraid of being relevant again

The problem here is not the pay tv providers, but rather with the content creators themselves. They would be the ones who need to make the first move, in this case, offer their content to Apple TV and others for a reduced price.

The problem is they have no incentive to do this, as pay tv providers (and their customers) pay content providers even when they do not watch this content.

Also keep in mind that over the past 15 years, the number of available pay tv providers available to most given residential customers has increased. Most people can get pay TV from at least one cable company, both satellite companies and sometimes a telephone company, or any combination thereof. But even with this, service prices still continue to go up.

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

2 edits

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

said by pnh102:

The problem here is not the pay tv providers, but rather with the content creators themselves. They would be the ones who need to make the first move, in this case, offer their content to Apple TV and others for a reduced price.

The problem is they have no incentive to do this, as pay tv providers (and their customers) pay content providers even when they do not watch this content.

Also keep in mind that over the past 15 years, the number of available pay tv providers available to most given residential customers has increased. Most people can get pay TV from at least one cable company, both satellite companies and sometimes a telephone company, or any combination thereof. But even with this, service prices still continue to go up.

That is because the real oligopoly power rests with the big 7 content companies. They control almost all content and it is they who set the prices.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me ··· lomerate
quote:
The Walt Disney Company is America's largest media conglomerate in terms of revenue, with News Corporation, Time Warner, CBS Corporation and Viacom completing the top 5. Other major players are NBCUniversal, and Sony



»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me ··· g_Six.22

skeechan
Ai Otsukaholic
Premium Member
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170

skeechan to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102
It doesn't look like Apple was looking for direct carrier deals. I thought they were looking to partner with MSOs to stream the channels to Apple TV, just like Cox already does with their iPad app.

If it is direct producer deals, MSOs can cry exclusivity all they want, like Dish Network did over AMC, but what are they going to do? They can get away with telling AMC no. But they can't get away with telling AMC, USA, TNT, HBO, ESPN, HGTV, FX, and everyone else no. Once one domino falls, like Disney, the MSOs have lost this war.

Meanwhile for the content creators this other model would simply be a NEW revenue stream. They don't have to make more than they get from the MSOs because that revenue would be in addition to what they get from the MSOs.

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to FFH5

Premium Member

to FFH5
I'd argue that even with say, 20 or more major content companies, each one of those companies has a "monopoly" on its product. For example, if you want to watch "Pawn Stars" you can only get that from the company that owns The History Channel. No other content company could (legally) sell you access to "Pawn Stars."
pnh102

pnh102 to skeechan

Premium Member

to skeechan
said by skeechan:

It doesn't look like Apple was looking for direct carrier deals. I thought they were looking to partner with MSOs to stream the channels to Apple TV, just like Cox already does with their iPad app.

The problem here is that instead of going into a new (and very small, as per my previous post) market, they are now competing with every pay tv provider who offers a similar app. They'd also be doing it at a disadvantage because for the Apple service to work, a separate piece of dedicated hardware would need to be purchased, as contrasted to something like the Cox or Comcast app, which runs right on an iPad that many people already own.
said by skeechan:

If it is direct producer deals, MSOs can cry exclusivity all they want, like Dish Network did over AMC, but what are they going to do? They can get away with telling AMC no. But they can't get away with telling AMC, USA, TNT, HBO, ESPN, HGTV, FX, and everyone else no. Once one domino falls, like Disney, the MSOs have lost this war.

This could also go the other way. People who have Dish but who want to watch AMC content are more likely to simply switch to a provider which shows AMC.
said by skeechan:

Meanwhile for the content creators this other model would simply be a NEW revenue stream. They don't have to make more than they get from the MSOs because that revenue would be in addition to what they get from the MSOs.

The problem here again is that the cord cutter market is still very small. Even if every cord-cutter were to subscribe to these kinds of services, the total money gained would be tiny compared to what the content providers get from the pay tv providers. Also look at it from this way:

What if a network like AMC decided to offer a $10 or $15 a month streaming service that allowed for people with no cable service to watch current AMC content? I doubt that the pay tv providers to which AMC is currently joined at the hip would like that very much, as this gives pay tv subscribers a nice incentive to drop pay tv service.
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA

elray

Member

There is no gridlock

Cable and satellite companies manage to buy content for their base, year after year, despite ContentCo's effective monopoly power.

Only Apple refuses to do so.

In their usual hubris, they seem to believe they have the right to take the content owner's property and dictate the price, just because they're going to deliver it on a 2K TV / STB.

Even Google (finally) managed to learn a lesson from their GoogleTV box - Kansas City Fiberhoods may not have ESPN or HBO, but the lineup is 80% of what America wants.

morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000

morbo to Kearnstd

Member

to Kearnstd

Re: Why can't Apple go solo w/ TV Tuner Card?

Consumers are willing to pay for content whether it is traditional cable bill, a la carte cable, or streaming a la carte. The current model is antiquated and forces consumers into tiers that don't accurately reflect the demands of the market.

I think ESPN on a la carte priced at $5-$9 a month is reasonable since it is an expensive channel (the most after premium channels?), but I think expecting consumers to pay the same price for Comedy Central or FX or CNN is ridiculous because it isn't a good value and doesn't reflect the actual cost to provide the channel.
zod5000
join:2003-10-21
Victoria, BC

1 recommendation

zod5000 to apple4ever

Member

to apple4ever

Re: No Crapple!

said by apple4ever:

Haha people really believe this?

The cable industry is making it worse for themselves by NOT working with Apple.

It depends which side of the industry. How would it benefit the cableco's? If people move to online distribution it cuts them out of cable revenue and expedites cord cutting. The whole purpose of a cableco is to play the middleman between the channels and the customers (relay the signals). If people are getting that stuff via an applebox (or any other box) it cuts them out. Leaving them only to internet revenue.

On the flip side it could be beneficial to the cable channels as it would create another avenue of revenue. However it may not benefit them as much either. Carriage agreements are pretty complex. Media companies will sell their packages as a big bundle. Mix up popular stations with crappy ones and make the cableco (and thus the consumer) pay for more channels than they want. IE collecting carriage fees for channels most people wouldn't normally pay for.

I think its more complicated that you made it out to be.

Morac
Cat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ

Morac to inteller

Member

to inteller

Re: Microsoft is eating their lunch in the living room anyways.

said by inteller:

No one will want to play craptastic iPhone games on a large screen and Microsoft is already killing them in the app space with stuff like Crackle and HBO GO. Sure the paywalls suck, but that can change over time. Microsoft was willing to deal with the cable devils in order to get a foothold.

Actually tons of people buy "iPhone games" for the large screen. PlayStation sells "PSN minis", Roku 2 has games. Hell, the Angry Birds Trilogy is coming to the PS3 and XBox 360. That's the pinnacle iPhone game.

As for things like Crackle and HBO2Go. Both also exist on iOS devices.

If Apple were to ever enable apps on their Apple TV hardware, they would increase sales on them exponentially.
LucasLee
join:2010-11-26

LucasLee to pnh102

Member

to pnh102

Re: MSOs are afraid of being relevant again

said by pnh102:

I'd argue that even with say, 20 or more major content companies, each one of those companies has a "monopoly" on its product. For example, if you want to watch "Pawn Stars" you can only get that from the company that owns The History Channel. No other content company could (legally) sell you access to "Pawn Stars."

you are misusing the term "monopoly".
page: 1 · 2 · next