Apple Cooking Up New $30 A Month TV Service? But specifics seem awfully muddy for now... Monday Nov 02 2009 15:00 EDT According to Media Memo, Apple is pitching the idea of a new, "over the top" $30 a month subscription broadband TV service. The service, which would not be tied to Apple's Apple TV device, would simply be an extension of the iTunes video store. According to the report, Disney is one likely possible partner -- an interesting mention given they're supposedly having some trouble agreeing with cable companies over payment for their "TV Everywhere" online video initiative. Of course cable operators will fight like hell given this would be a direct competitor to both regular cable and TV Everywhere, and broadcasters may not sign up out of fear of threatening their relationships with cable companies. |
baineschile2600 ways to live Premium Member join:2008-05-10 Sterling Heights, MI
1 recommendation |
How manyHow many times has apple-tv failed so far? I think they underestimeate the infastructe and functionality they will need for a project like this. | |
| | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Nov-2 3:26 pm
Re: How manyApple TV hasn't failed at all. In fact, given that Apple hasn't invested a lot of effort in the product, it seems to be doing relatively well. BTW, this rumor supposedly isn't dependent on the aTV. | |
| | PhoenixDownFIOS is Awesome Premium Member join:2003-06-08 Fresh Meadows, NY |
to baineschile
I actually like my Apple TV. It has room to grow (like supporting 1080p content) but I'm not at that point myself yet. | |
| | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to baineschile
I'd love to get an apple tv, just don't have a tv that could hook up to it. the concept is awesome.
now if there was a linux version/ maybe even something android-ish i'd be all over it. why? b/c someone would hack it to be an outstanding device. thats why. w/ apple your kinda just stuck with whatever they decide it can do. | |
| | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Nov-2 7:26 pm
Re: How manyYou might want to read around a few aTV and media center forums. Quite a bit has been accomplished with the aTV. There's a particularly interesting thread over at the XBMC forums about swapping out the mini PCIe wireless card with a Broadcom hardware decoding card to eventually decode 1080p blueray rips. | |
| | | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: How manysaid by openbox9:You might want to read around a few aTV and media center forums. Quite a bit has been accomplished with the aTV. There's a particularly interesting thread over at the XBMC forums about swapping out the mini PCIe wireless card with a Broadcom hardware decoding card to eventually decode 1080p blueray rips. mmm. thats kinda sexy | |
|
| jsz0 Premium Member join:2008-01-23 Jewett City, CT |
to baineschile
said by baineschile:I think they underestimeate the infastructe and functionality they will need for a project like this. Apple already has the infrastructure. iTunes Store is the largest commercial online content distributor. Apple partners with two of the biggest CDNs (Akamai & Limelight) to deliver content. I imagine it would be easy for them to add more CDNs for future scalability. So Apple does have a lot of experience dealing with large distribution infrastructure. (also the iPhone App Store) As for functionality the current incarnation of the Apple TV seems adequate. It's not really all that hard. Sort by genre/network/name, play/pause/stop, resume at last position, etc. This is all stuff Apple TV has done since 1.0. On the hardware side it's likely the Apple TV would make the jump to the iPhone/Touch SOC and become smaller & cheaper. $99-$149 is a good price point for the functionality it offers. (similar to the Roku Netflix box and on-par with iPod pricing) Apple would need to expand their partnership with film & TV to offer more content if they want to handle all the distribution deals in-house. I suspect instead they would go for an App Store model for some programming hold outs. For example both the MLB & NBA have launched their "season pass" video services on the iPhone via the App Store model. | |
| | | |
Re: How manysaid by jsz0:said by baineschile:I think they underestimeate the infastructe and functionality they will need for a project like this. Apple already has the infrastructure. iTunes Store is the largest commercial online content distributor. Apple partners with two of the biggest CDNs (Akamai & Limelight) to deliver content. I imagine it would be easy for them to add more CDNs for future scalability. So Apple does have a lot of experience dealing with large distribution infrastructure. (also the iPhone App Store) You are right. Apple uses both Akamai and Limelight for various things. I have no idea if they use one or both for Apple TV (I've never used it) but I can assure you that every single bit of data Apple sends in every category (from aple tv, itube, OS updates etc) combined would be a small fraction of Either Akamai's or Limelight's capacity, let alone both of them. | |
|
|
Bring it on.Why it wouldn't be tied to apple tv is weird, though. | |
| | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Nov-2 3:29 pm
Re: Bring it on.Because the iTunes market share greatly dwarfs the number of aTV devices on the market. Consumers aren't required to have an aTV now to purchase content through the iTS so I doubt that philosophy would change. I'm sure aTV wouldn't be excluded, just not required. | |
| | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: Bring it on.having aTV would enhance the experience, hopefully. | |
| | | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Nov-2 7:29 pm
Re: Bring it on.Possibly. It definitely eases the interface to the living room TV for the layperson. | |
|
| 88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
to mystryfiostk
said by mystryfiostk:Why it wouldn't be tied to apple tv is weird, though. because most people like me would NEVER consider buying one but might be interested in the subscription. Now if Apple would have the same attitude about their OS it might actually get above 8%. Sorry some of us are just NEVR going to overpay for a computer just to get a supposedly superior OS. It may be supperior but until Apple actually offer it to PC users I'll never know. And Apple won't get my money. Their loss, MS gain. | |
|
|
Umm, this already existsGranted, most people are paying closer to $65.00 a month, but once you've paid for your high speed interweb, there are places (evil places true), that will provide you with EVERY TV show, commercial free! And it's unlimited! I've checked, and I've already saved 1,651 Seasons of TV shows, made up of 23,651 Episodes, taking up 7.69 TB of storage space right now. Now, granted, I recorded them all with my HD DVR, and stripped out all the commercials, so it's all legal, but if I had the ability to get EVERY show I wanted, commercial free, in 720p format from the apple store, I would consider paying the $30.00/month. But only if the selection is better than I already have. | |
| |
1 recommendation |
Watcher23423
Anon
2009-Nov-2 3:26 pm
Re: Umm, this already existsSo that's enough TV for 8 hours a day every day for 4 years.
Assuming each episode was 30 minutes.
Just one question. Do you actually watch all that crap? | |
| | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Nov-2 3:33 pm
Re: Umm, this already existskarlmarx has previously stated that he doesn't watch all of the content that he obtains and that he has it only because he can. | |
| | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Umm, this already existsCorrect, I don't watch most of it. BUT, my systems are setup to record every tv show I select, automatically cut commercials, and save it. Since I have FIOS (50/50), I share it with all my friends and family, who do watch shows I don't. (aka Desperate Houswives and the like) Storage is cheap, I paid about $3500.00 for a 13.5 TB NAS (Well, I have 3 of them), I pay about $90.00 a month for FIOS, and I move about 1.8TB of data every month over that line. (Average speed is about 12,000kb/sec during nights, slower during day)
The benefit, is that if you are part of my VPN network (all my sisters are, and about 20 friends), you can browse to my server and watch any tv show you want whenever you want. Great for Kids, and the best part is, they don't need to have any technical skills to do it. (some of them have d-links, other Xbox-360's, they all work). I've setup their routers to VPN to my PIX, and voila, instant TV Shows on demand using a simple, not computer person type device. It's much easier for them, because I do all the technical stuff to make it all work, and they don't have to pay extra.
oh, I also have about 5000 movies, which I've copied to my server from the DVD. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Umm, this already existsand this is legal how? | |
| | | | | | cdruGo Colts MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN |
cdru
MVM
2009-Nov-2 4:33 pm
Re: Umm, this already existsUntil he shared it, it was fair use. Depending on where he lives, sharing it may at best legal, at worst illegal, or a legal gray area in between. | |
| | | | | | |
to rendrenner
It's illegal how? I LEGALLY recorded the show that was BROADCAST OTA for FREE? Wait, it was FREE in the first place, you can't charge me with any 'theft' because what I am sharing HAS NO VALUE. Again, it was BROADCAST for FREE, please place a dollar value on something they gave me for FREE? Oh, wait. $0.00 dollars. Please tell me how you can go from FREE to NOT-FREE? | |
| | | | | | | |
Re: Umm, this already existsThe sharing part. Not theft, but copyright infringement. Same reason you can't sing "Happy birthday" at a party.
But I love it. Can I be your friend???
Is it mythtv based? What device do you use for display? 330 ION things? | |
| | | | | | | | |
Re: Umm, this already existsyep, 3 myth tv boxes (so I can record 3 at once). BUT, I got a samsung 52" DNLA enabled TV, so I don't need any 3rd party device to stream locally. I would HIGHLY recommend your next TV has DNLA built in, that way you can just plug it into your network, configure the IP of the server, and stream your shows right from your computer (I have a windows 7 machine that acts as a DNLA server too, so it streams all my media right to my tv).
What do you mean you can't sing happy birthday? That has GOT to be public domain by now. Oh, wait, mickey mouse wants copyright to last 'forever minus one day", right?
Just remember, GREED IS GOOD! "Greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves." Gordon Gekko got it right, I get MORE than I need or deserve, by living by his rules! Sharing Movies/Music/TV is the ultimate end result of a culture of greed, which is what Amerika has turned into. Don't blame the end users, blame the republicans who taught us that GREED IS GOOD! Copyrights infringe on my RIGHT to be greedy, so I choose to ignore them! All hail the GREED! | |
| | | | | | | | | nixenRockin' the Boxen Premium Member join:2002-10-04 Alexandria, VA |
nixen
Premium Member
2009-Nov-2 8:03 pm
Re: Umm, this already existssaid by karlmarx:BUT, I got a samsung 52" DNLA enabled TV, so I don't need any 3rd party device to stream locally. I would HIGHLY recommend your next TV has DNLA built in, that way you can just plug it into your network, configure the IP of the server, and stream your shows right from your computer (I have a windows 7 machine that acts as a DNLA server too, so it streams all my media right to my tv). Meh. I have all my content sources going directly through my A/V head. Audio goes directly to my amp and video goes out to the TV. Everything hooked up via HDMI or optical cable to the A/V head. Don't really feel like having to reconfigure things so that audio and video transit from my TV to my A/V head. | |
| | | | | | | | | mworks join:2006-06-13 Rose Hill, NC |
to karlmarx
You are part of what is wrong with the internet. You get content illegally and are happy doing it. If someone owns something and they tell you that you cannot view it unless you follow their guidelines then you do not have the right to say otherwise. It is not your right to view the content. You do not own the content.
This is why all the DRM crap is being forced on the rest of us. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Re: Umm, this already existsWhoa there nelly. Someone tells me I cannot view it unless I follow their guidelines? That's bull, and you know it. If I PAY $20.00 for a DVD, I have EVERY RIGHT to view it in any manner, format, time, location, etc I want to. I believe you are one of those nutcases who believes that we only 'rent' the movie when we give them our money? That's wrong on so many levels, I can't even begin to count. For starters, the right of first sale CLEARLY states that when I BUY something from you, I have the RIGHT to resell it. Basically, that means when I buy it, I OWN it. If I OWN it, you have NO right to tell me what I can or cannot do with it. You're probably one of those right wing republican nut cases who thinks we should have camera's in the bedrooms so we don't engage in 'illegal' activities in there. | |
| | | | | | | | | | mworks join:2006-06-13 Rose Hill, NC |
mworks
Member
2009-Nov-3 3:41 pm
Re: Umm, this already existsExcept you didn't pay for a DVD, you downloaded the content. Big difference. And it doesn't matter if it was over the air broadcast. If you download it, cut out the commercials and distribute it, then you have just stolen from the broadcaster. Who do you think pays for the shows ? Why is it so hard for people to understand that when someone who owns something be it music or a movie tells you I am willing to let you have a copy, but I don't want you to do any of the following, that you can't accept it ? Where is it written that you have the right to anything owned by anyone else ?
If I buy a DVD and they tell me before I buy it that I can't show it in a commercial setting then I have the choice to buy it or not buy it. Your attitude is one of , well I'll buy it and if I don't like the terms I'll do what I want anyway . As long as the owner of the material makes their terms clear before you pay anything then you don't have the right to do what you want.
Where I have a problem is when the owner changes the rules AFTER the sale. Everyone has a choice to use or not use something. Movies, software, music are not a right, if you don't like the terms, spend your money elsewhere.
I am an artist. If I do a painting and someone says "I'll just take a picture of it, I wouldn't buy it anyway" , that is stealing from me. If I did the painting with the concept of being paid for everytime someone got a copy, then anyone making copies of it without paying me is stealing from me even though they didn't take away a physical item or cost me an actual sale. I did the work and set the conditions, nobody is being forced to copy the work. They have a choice, what you are wanting is for intellectual property to be worthless because it isn't physical. That is wrong, people did the work so they could be paid, don't like it, don't watch it. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman join:2000-09-20 Washington, DC |
to mworks
DRM I can live with.... Low caps like these I cannot.
I know I'm not alone in saying this. | |
|
| | | | | | xrobertcmx Premium Member join:2001-06-18 White Plains, MD |
to karlmarx
Basically, it isn't a dollar value. You are rebroadcasting those episodes outside your home for a larger audience. You are in a really interesting position because you are not broadcasting them to the public at large, but family members over a closed network which could be argued any number of ways. Try not to get caught, but if you do, let me know how it goes. | |
| | | | | | | |
to karlmarx
You're incorrect when you make the leap from receiving it free to rebroadcasting it for general distribution is legal..
RIAA walks into a grocery that has their background music hooked up to an FM radio and is rebroadcasting the FM stations music (that the FM station already paid a licensing fee). Grocery gets a cease and desist letter.
Fast food restaurant rebroadcast satellite radio into their dining area. Its legal because the restaurant is paying a rebroadcasting fee the same way a night club pays a fee to play recorded music from a record. | |
|
| | | | |
to karlmarx
I think you have crossed the line of "so it's all legal" by sharing it. | |
| | | | | | AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
Re: Umm, this already existsHe crossed the line several times by distribution, derivative work, etc... Thats assuming all of it was as stated as originating from OTA broadcasts, if some came from Sat/Cable/Internet it gets deeper.
I'm more impressed if he found 13.5 TB of stuff OTA worth recording... | |
| | | | | | | 3 edits |
Re: Umm, this already existsreally, because sharing a vhs copy or dvd of any of your movies at home and sending it to all your friends isnt legal? i guess it depends on your country. in canada, sharing with your friends and family is legal if you own the original copy. the format shouldnt matter. it seems like fair use so long as hes not publicly selling access to his vpn. | |
| | | | | | | | AVonGauss Premium Member join:2007-11-01 Boynton Beach, FL |
Re: Umm, this already existsI am not an expert on Canadian law, but I don't think it quite works that way. I believe what you are referring to is the levies regarding you making a personal copy for yourself. Not distribution, or uploading, etc. | |
|
| | | | JBear join:2005-02-24 canada |
to karlmarx
Wow Karl that's a great set up. What do you do for sports? Do you have a network Schematic? So many questions!!!! | |
|
| Lark3po Premium Member join:2003-08-05 Madison, AL |
to karlmarx
said by karlmarx:Granted, most people are paying closer to $65.00 a month, but once you've paid for your high speed interweb, there are places (evil places true), that will provide you with EVERY TV show, commercial free! And it's unlimited! Link? | |
|
syslock Premium Member join:2007-02-03 La La Land
1 recommendation |
syslock
Premium Member
2009-Nov-2 3:13 pm
Boo Hooo cable co'sAdapt with the times or die.
Same goes for the telco's.
Keep up, give the users what they want, or someone else will come along and take your business from you. | |
| | •••••• | |
The more, the merrierThis is a great idea. The more of these broadband services we have, the more anti-competitive the cable companies and telcos will look if they try to place restrictions on them that favor their own offerings.
And I know I'm going to get replies about the cable companies and telcos being private businesses who can run their networks as they see fit. Yes, they are, but if they're all about doing whatever they like, then maybe they don't need access to public rights-of-way to lay cable. If they like unregulated capitalism so much, then let's see how they like having to negotiate rights with each landowner whose property they want to cross. | |
| | Gbcue Premium Member join:2001-09-30 Santa Rosa, CA |
Gbcue
Premium Member
2009-Nov-2 3:20 pm
Re: The more, the merriersaid by ISurfTooMuch:This is a great idea. The more of these broadband services we have, the more anti-competitive the cable companies and telcos will look if they try to place restrictions on them that favor their own offerings. And I know I'm going to get replies about the cable companies and telcos being private businesses who can run their networks as they see fit. Yes, they are, but if they're all about doing whatever they like, then maybe they don't need access to public rights-of-way to lay cable. If they like unregulated capitalism so much, then let's see how they like having to negotiate rights with each landowner whose property they want to cross. Apple TV isn't a "broadband service". As a matter of fact, you need a broadband connection in order for it to operate at all. | |
| | | openbox9 Premium Member join:2004-01-26 71144 |
openbox9
Premium Member
2009-Nov-2 3:36 pm
Re: The more, the merriersaid by Gbcue:As a matter of fact, you need a broadband connection in order for it to operate at all. I don't believe that to be true. There are people that utilize an aTV without downloading content from the Internet. You need a connection to the Internet if you want to purchase content from the iTS. | |
|
1 recommendation |
Caps an issueCable company caps will make this not viable for everyone except maybe FiOS users who already have a great TV service. | |
| | ••••••••••••••••••••••• | Z801 point 77 Premium Member join:2009-08-31 Amerika
1 recommendation |
Z80
Premium Member
2009-Nov-2 3:48 pm
And the caps axe will kill it before it beginsISPs, particularly those who are in video competition will simply cap this service out of competition. $30+ISP penalties will insure it is not competitive. | |
| | ••••••••••• | RX300 join:2004-02-23 Bluff Dale, TX |
RX300
Member
2009-Nov-2 6:14 pm
If Apple Would Hand Out BandwidthAll Apple has done is suck up more bandwidth. When are going to do something about supplying some?? I could use a little more for my slow as h*** bottomed out DSL connection out here in the boonies. | |
| | IPPlanManHoly Cable Modem Batman join:2000-09-20 Washington, DC 1 edit |
Re: If Apple Would Hand Out Bandwidth | |
|
TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus join:2001-06-20 Cheyenne, WY |
It is getting to the point....I watch so much of my TV via the internet either downloading or direct viewing I am starting to wonder why I have my Dish Network system. I enjoy shows from the UK, such as Top Gear, Time Team, Stars at Night, etc. I presently have network TV as part of my package from Dish Network. I looked in on it for the first time in a couple of decades and I see I have not missed anything. To those of you who enjoy the programing on the History channels, Discovery, TLC. Science Channel, etc so much of the programing to be seen there comes from the UK originally. The difference is I don't have to wait a year or more to see it. I get it with in hours after it airs in the UK. Would I pay 30 bucks a month to Apple for their TV, HELL NO!!!!! But if could get a ala cart menu of UK televison that is something I might consider. | |
| | |
Re: It is getting to the point....you might be interested in MyHomeDVR.com | |
|
|
Two issues...I see two problems with this:
1.) $30 for what? A few channels that you may not even watch (like those ridiculousness mobile-TV subscriptions)? Compared to the 30-40 you pay for cable with 100+ channels? Will the channels be HD? Too many unknown variables here.
2.) I am planning on not purchasing cable when I get an apartment soon. Even though I'll have the money, I only watch maybe 5-10 channels about 5-10 hours a week. So I'm paying $30+ a month for 24-hours of 100+ channels, 90% of which is reruns and shows I don't watch, and sports channels which cost so much they should be "Premium" channels instead of making me pay for someone else to get sports at a lower rate? No thanks. When cable and media companies stops bit**ing about how a-la-carte will kill the industry and actually offer me something I like, then I will buy.
I give them this -- at least it's online. I would like to have a TV service that was online, but that's only one demand. | |
| | ••• | |
compete with FREE and othersunlike the audio/mp3 business.. video is at a transition point where broadband is not distributed evenly across the country for it to be a catalyst in terms of demand. companies have become so big that they seem to not care about expanding deployments and/or ramping up speeds in a big hurry anymore. therefore, it will take at least 5 more years for emerging commitments to expand/build broadband to see a true maket where video distribution (commercially on a scale that Apple wants to actually make sense). the whole notion of caps/limits/tiers will need major reform to the benefit of the consumer for video services to take off as well. multi-tv homes will also demand some type of (home) centralized server to feed video to tv's and tv's themselves may end up with flash slots and hard drive combination to store video for localized on-demand programming, in addition to OTA channels.
then, Apple will have to cleverly market video to compete against all the FREE torrent/rss feed customized no-border wild internet provides and do a better job at it. at $30, the pricepoint overlaps satellite tv... but considering it would be some sort of on-demand programming for which one would not have to "RENT/BUY" set-top boxes, this means either your TV will have to support video input and your computer is a multi-core system which can handle streaming to a tv, and yet fully capable of doing regullar computing stuff simultaneously (quad-core, at least). video cards are already beginning to handle multi-out of different feeds to multi-monitors without skipping a beat so, the future does look bright for replacing the set-top in that repect.
not to be outdone, netflix and other companies such as google (youtube) are chomping at the bit to evolve their business models to give Apple a run for it's money, so no wonder they are floating the Video trial-baloon now, compared to next year. all of this points to the cable companies losing video subscribership the way voip converted the masses of POTS phone lines a decade+... | |
| |
Big fan of Apples with an iPhoneand MacBookPro but I would pass on such a thing
I still prefer my TV for my shows and the DVR helps.
I enjoy Netflix for my views on my computer but even Netflix's cheap price (imo, cheap that is) still makes me wonder every month if I should be paying that.....so tripling that price (even for good lineups) probably wouldn't be within my price range. | |
| |
capskkk
Anon
2009-Nov-3 10:41 am
cable and satelinternet companies usually are owned by satellite-cable tv providers
they just cap their internet connection to hell and kill apples service.
thats competition and capitalism at work. | |
| | |
Re: cable and satelYea, and get keel hauled by the FCC & FTC for anti-competition.
- A | |
|
FastiBook |
Streaming via....Streaming to your iPhone etc, or load & watch to your iPhone, laptop, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, Desktop...
I really think if the content is there, it will work.
- A | |
|
| |
|
|