Despite Hype, New Apple TV Product a No Show Even Apple Can't Get Past Legacy Cable/Broadcast Gridlock 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. The end result have been things like Microsoft's Xbox 360 video offerings, which on the surface sound innovative, but suffer from paywalls and other restrictions all designed to protect legacy video profits. Most of the tech press spent most of the year arguing that Apple's new TV service was going to somehow be different, but despite (or perhaps because of) the company's golden child status, Apple is facing the exact same problem. Despite a year of Apple TV related hype ranging from new iTVs to rumored Apple set top boxes, it appears that no new Apple TV product is slated for 2012 as the company has struggled in negotiations with wary broadcasters: Apple is vying with the likes of Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Amazon.com Inc. to make TVs the digital hub of people’s lives in an industry projected to reach $200 billion worldwide by 2017. Whoever wins must first strike deals with media companies or cable providers who have little incentive to cede valuable revenue streams. The result: Apple won’t be releasing a new TV product this year, as analysts had predicted, said a person familiar with the company’s plans. Despite the fact that Apple engineers have been hammering away at the idea of a new TV platform since 2005, they can't engineer their way around a cable and broadcast TV sector that's terrified of somebody upsetting the existing apple cart.
|
  intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK
 ·Cingular Wireless
| 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.
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" | |
|  |  MoracCat god
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ
kudos:1
 ·Comcast
| 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.
--
The Comcast Disney Avatar has been retired. | |
|
 fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | 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.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1 | |
| | steven sPremium
join:2002-09-14
Dearborn, MI | 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? | |
| | | | | Re: No Crapple! Haha people really believe this?
The cable industry is making it worse for themselves by NOT working with Apple. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·Shaw
| 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. | |
| | | | steven sPremium
join:2002-09-14
Dearborn, MI Reviews:
·WOW Internet and..
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| said by apple4ever:Haha people really believe this?
The cable industry is making it worse for themselves by NOT working with Apple.
If Apple manages to convince cable companies to get on board with an Apple TV cable box, Google will quickly follow. From there, it won't be long before most customers will be using Apple or Google TV.
Now cable operators lose virtually all revenue associated with VOD and rental fees. For someone with 2 HDTVs who pays for a movie or two On Demand, this could be a loss of $30-40.
Maybe that's good for you and me, but how the hell is that good for the cable industry? | |
| | | |  CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | said by apple4ever:The cable industry is making it worse for themselves by NOT working with Apple.
Haha you really believe this?  | |
| | | | | | Content owners are NOT worried about Apple. And Cable MSOs own a good share of that content anyway. They an keep Apple at bay and not worry about them at all. For once someone is standing up to them. | |
| | | |  Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | said by apple4ever:The cable industry is making it worse for themselves by NOT working with Apple. That's a huge load of horse shit. If you ask every cellular company, they'll say that making the deal with the devil (aka. Apple) was the biggest drain on their financial and technical resources.
..and I could see why when Apple is getting a huge percentage on each sale of any Apple products. If companies aren't making enough revenue (or profits), things start to disappear.. like unlimited data. I can only imagine what it would do to the CATV world.
"What? My bill went up 50%!!??!"
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.3G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo] | |
|
| | | This post is so full of incorrect information I don't know where to start. | |
| | | |
| | Good Good, Apple would just find a way to make tv even more expensive and consumer un-friendly. | |
|  PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | 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. | |
| | | | 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. | |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | 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.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | 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. | |
| |  morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | 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. | |
| | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | 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.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | 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. | |
|
 skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 | 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. | |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: MSOs are afraid of being relevant again 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.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| 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). | |
| | | yabos
join:2003-02-16
London, ON | Yeah Tru2Way was supposed to allow consumers to buy their own set top, and get the cable card from the cable provider. The only thing was you still have a motorola specific cable card and a cisco specific cable card. The cable card software was what restricted PPV access and such, and last time I was using it(I worked for a company developing Tru2Way set top software) the cable card software was quite buggy as well as the actual firmware on the set tops was very buggy and slow.
Since that company was dismembered and eaten by Comcast, I haven't followed Tru2Way so perhaps it's gotten better. | |
|
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | 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/2012/08/···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.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. | |
| | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| 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. | |
| | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | 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.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. | |
| | | | |  LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5
2 edits | Re: MSOs are afraid of being relevant again 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/Media_conglomerate
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/Media_cros···g_Six.22
--
»www.mittromney.com/s/repeal-and-···bamacare
»www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care | |
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: MSOs are afraid of being relevant again 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."
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. | |
| | | | | | | | | 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". | |
| | | | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: MSOs are afraid of being relevant again said by LucasLee:you are misusing the term "monopoly".
A monopoly is defined as a market in which there is one source for a product or service.
If I want to watch a current episode of Pawn Stars, I have to go through the History Channel to get it. I can't go to any other (legitimate) channel.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. | |
| | | | | | | | |  LightSPremium
join:2005-12-17
Greenville, TX | Re: MSOs are afraid of being relevant again Err... I wouldn't consider a TV show the product/service. I would consider The History Channel itself the product.. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | that's like saying Apple has a monopoly on iPhones. when the market under discussion would actually be 'smartphones', and the iPhone is simply one competing option.
if you were to look around, i'm certain you could find a show equivalent to Pawn Stars from a different network.
there are many other content providers offering other tv shows of various quality, and that is the market within which Pawn Stars exists. so unless the owners of Pawn Stars own all low rent garbage tv shows, then there is no monopoly. | |
|
| | | | skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
join:2012-01-26
AA169|170
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
·Clear Wireless
| 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. | |
| | | | | | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: MSOs are afraid of being relevant again 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.
--
Romney/Ryan 2012 - Put a couple of mature adults in charge. | |
|
| KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Disney is very close to an entertainment monopoly, they own so much that there are many things that you cannot get without somehow having to go through them or something owned by them.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·KCH Cable
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| 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... | |
| | Simba7I Void Warranties
join:2003-03-24
Billings, MT | Re: Too late I hear that. I can operate CATV (CableCard coupled with an InfiniTV4 Card), FTA Satellite (TBS6984 Card), and OTA (ATI TV Wonder HD 650 and 2x Dual Tuner HDHomerun boxes) from a single Media Center.
..now if there was a way to make it decode Dish Network (no CAM Interface yet) or DirecTV (different tech, improbable) through the same box.. then I could turn it into a server and feed it to everything in the house.
--
Bresnan 30M/5M | CenturyLink 5M/896K
MyWS[PnmIIX3@3.3G,8G RAM,500G+1.5T+2T HDDs,Win7]
WifeWS[A64@2G,2G RAM,120G HDD,Win7]
Router[2xP3@1G,2G RAM,18G HDD,Allied Telesyn AT2560FX,2xDigital DE504,Sun X1034A,2xSun X4444A,SMC 8432BTA,Gentoo] | |
|
| | 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. | |
| elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | 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. | |
|  ARGONAUTgot android?Premium
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN
kudos:1 | Achtung! | |
|
| |
|
|
