[Eugene]

That rumor is an acceptable compromise of two things I though should have happened years ago.

Originally Posted by Me in 2010 An Apple TV would have all the functionality of an iTV built-in (or maybe if the iTV is small enough, it would be able to fit as a module within the Apple TV itself.) I don't see Apple encouraging iTV owners to use other devices. It's one device to replace everything, not one device to rule/control them all.

Originally Posted by Also me in 2010 I could definitely see a real Apple TV. I've argued for a while that Apple needs to play nice with existing content providers to gain a better footing into the space. It all goes back to my opinion that the original AppleTV needed M-Card/CableCard/DVB to be compatible with the rest of the TV ecosystem.

As long it's a small module that works seamlessly with partner displays, it'll be 90% of what I want on the hardware side. Contentwise, you still have to pay the cable middleman...but whatever.

I'm not feeling this iPhone/carrier vs AppleTV/content analogy. On the iPhone Apple has complete control over the user experience. Your only exposure to the carrier is the link throughput and the brandname in the upper left corner. Cable providers are still going to deliver content as they always have, including network disputes, advertising, overpriced bundles for channels you never watch, etc. Apple successfully grabbed AT&T by the balls and got nearly everything it wanted when the original iPhone was released in 2007.

[torifile]

That Bloomberg and the WSJ are reporting is, repeatedly, makes me think it's a done deal. I've been thinking about the interface for the Podcasts app and how it seems like a trial run for something like a new interaction model for television programming. It removes the "channels" and put things by interests, which is a much more logical way to organize things.

[screensaver400]

With all of these leaks happening now, with the September 12 event imminent... What are the chances of a release then? Since the iPad mini apparently isn't as far along as the iPhone, perhaps it'll be an iPhone/TV event, with the iPad mini released in October, along with updates to the iPod line.

[Kraetos]

The September event is already jam packed. New iPhone is the obvious one, but if you believe everything you read, now we're looking at new iPhone, smaller iPad, totally revamped AppleTV, and retina 13" MBP.

Personally I think it's just the first two and the last two are coming early next year, but can you imagine if it was all 4? An update to all four major product lines, at prices low enough to rock Christmas? It would be Apple's best quarter ever by basically every metric.

Or what if the AppleTV is just a software update? Maybe come September 13, AppleTV has dozens more "channels" corresponding to actual channels?

[torifile]

Originally Posted by Kraetos The September event is already jam packed. New iPhone is the obvious one, but if you believe everything you read, now we're looking at new iPhone, smaller iPad, totally revamped AppleTV, and retina 13" MBP. Personally I think it's just the first two and the last two are coming early next year, but can you imagine if it was all 4? An update to all four major product lines, at prices low enough to rock Christmas? It would be Apple's best quarter ever by basically every metric. Or what if the AppleTV is just a software update? Maybe come September 13, AppleTV has dozens more "channels" corresponding to actual channels?

That's what I think it is WRT the channels. It's a software solution, as far as I can tell. Remember when the Podcasts app was first released? It had a "subscribe" button and a redeem button. The official line was that they were left in there by accident because of a template they were using to build the app but I don't buy it. I think they were left exposed by accident but they were there for the future of the app/apps like it.

[FFL]

The key difference here is getting the cable companies to allow their cable cards (which determine what channels you can get and then descramble them) to be installed into the new Apple device (not a capability that can be added to the current Apple TV with a SW update). At that point, you get a single device that is...

- Cable TV decoder
- DVR
- Video On Demand player
- All functions of the current Apple TV
- (most important of all) Unified Apple Interface for everything

Unless Apple is going to convince the cable companies to drastically change their business model, it means that they are going to sell boxes to the cable companies so they can charge monthly rent on them to their customers (presumably at a premium over the standard Cisco DVR boxes). Maybe they would even try contracts a la the cellular carriers as a method to increase customer retention.

I'm pretty sure that they have never sold their cable cards, nor allow them into devices that could be purchased outright by consumers.

Dreaming big..... build in a cable internet modem also, and it could replace your cable modem and Airport router as well. Maybe even a second hard drive (in addition to the one doing the DVR functions) for Time Capsule capabilities?

[Kraetos]

FFL, you're spot on. Apple's goal should be to make all the hardware between the cable that comes out of the wall, and the TV. *Between* being the operative word. The cable and the TV are just low margin components that Apple is not interested in. The computer bits, that's where Apple can make a real improvement on the user experience. The screen? Not so much.

AppleTV sheds it's "hobby" moniker when you can buy one from your cable provider for an extra $10 on top of your bill. It wont be an actual TV for several years. Not as long as 60" TVs cost more than a Mac Pro.

[alcimedes]

Tivo has ports for cable cards, and the FCC ruled that cable companies have to provide them. Apple wouldn't *have* to have the units rented by the cable companies, and I don't see Apple partnering with comcast/qwest/cox etc. any time soon. As far as Apple cares they're just pipe/bandwidth vendors.

[torifile]

Who said anything about cable cards? The minute Apple develops hardware that has to connect to the archaic wired infrastructure, the infinitely harder this game gets.

You're not thinking big enough, guys. I think nearly every cable provider has a login system to allow their mobile apps to work. This is what you'll put into the Apple TV. That will give you access to the content. Done. No need to futz with cable cards or other hardware mumbo jumbo.

Apple is building monster data centers all over the country (world?) for what? To hold the video they will ultimately stream back to us, on demand and even live. It prevents the cable companies from becoming dumb pipes, helps them get the cord cutters back and opens up an entire world of streaming video to everyone. Who hasn't be clamoring for that sort of thing?

The more I think about it, the more brilliant it seems. There's no need for any additional infrastructure to be built out. No need for the cable company to deal with installers or broken hardware. All they need is to have an add on to one's data plan and that's it. I haven't had cable in like 5 years but I'd definitely sign up with something like this.

[pscates2.0]

Would be nice.

[Partial]

I hardly think a box is Steve Jobs' vision. The complicated part of a home entertainment center is the inputs. You ever try to teach a mother how to switch to Blu-ray player or the the PS3? That is the part that is complicated.

The boxes one gets from Time Warner are fairly user friendly. You know what's not? The television itself.

While I have no doubt they could come out with a nice solution from a box, I don't think we can consider that re-imagining television.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by torifile You're not thinking big enough, guys. I think nearly every cable provider has a login system to allow their mobile apps to work. This is what you'll put into the Apple TV. That will give you access to the content. Done. No need to futz with cable cards or other hardware mumbo jumbo.

M-Card/CableCard won't happen, you are right about that. However cable companies don't have anything resembling a standardized system for live TV. I'm with Comcast, so last week I had access to ESPN branded live streams and NBCOlympics streams, both using different sites and technologies. NBCOlympics used Adobe Flash and was available only from NBCOlympics.com. ESPN is available via watchespn.com or Xfinity. Non-live content on xfinity.com uses Silverlight, but they are going to transition away from it eventually.

I believe a cable-partnered AppleTV will be a new piece of hardware. To register the device, you'll have to provision it like a cable modem via MAC address and also have to login via linked Apple ID (maybe via cable account ID). It will have a cloud DVR capability, meaning there won't be an internal storage drive or even support for external drives. Apple will record every regional channel lineup for you and store it on its servers. Any bandwidth used for the service won't count toward your data cap if you have one.

The caveat is they will still force you to buy a digital cable package. There simply is no getting around it right now given how much cable companies themselves have to pay for them.

[FFL]

Doing it all through apps sounds great, and I'm sure that's where we're heading eventually. But I don't see this getting done without a CableCard slot (at least to start with) or some sort of similar hardware tuner/descrambler.

Anything else is way too disruptive for both the cable companies and the consumer. We're too used to tuning in to CBS or TNT or HBO. That's not going to change overnight, even with Apple leading the way.

There are lots of opinions out there about this... these were two of the ones I found most interesting (not that I necessarily agreed with everything).

http://www.tuaw.com/2012/08/16/apple...ble-operators/

and

http://mashable.com/2012/08/17/applet-set-top-plans/

[Eugene]

Re:Mashable silliness.

I stream ESPN via Comcast online, on my computer and all my iDevices. None of these pieces of hardware have a "CableCard," yet I am getting a cable only channel, streamed live 24/7.

Apple and cable companies are clearly far apart on where they think the direction of creative content is going, but one of them is going to budge. It looks like Apple is the one budging by hooking up with cable companies at all. It's become evident that owning a small portion of the content does not give you a golden ticket to negotiate lower prices for somebody else's content. This is how we've arrived at the impasse between DISH, DirecTV, AMC, Comedy Central and other networks. This is why regional cable sports networks are a mess. Apple must have come to the conclusion that unless it puts serious money into monopolizing content, it would never beat the cable companies. If you can't beat 'em directly, start off with a Trojan Horse... That's where Apple is headed now, pretend to make friends with Comcast/TWC/Cox/Charter/etc. Get them to let their guard down, become a fixture in 10x the number of homes before deciding where to go next. The cable companies will be happy as long as subscribers are willing to pay for a channel line-up.

Why would they do this? It allows them to reach homes that have DSL or some other type of broadband, but not necessarily cable TV...in a neat Apple package. The expectation is that the AppleTV experience will be much better than any existing FIOS, U-Verse, or even existing cable STB. Customers will want to switch TV providers to one which is partnered with Apple regardless of who provides their net.

[FFL]

Surprise, Surprise....

Apple may indeed be working on a revamped version of the Apple TV to work in conjunction with cable TV service, but such a product isn't expected to be released before the end of 2012. According to a new report by Bloomberg, Apple is running into bumps in the road in its negotiations with media companies, including who will control the interface and who will sell the set-top box. Last month, the Wall Street Journal cited sources saying that Apple was in talks with US cable operators to bring live TV and on-demand content to the Apple TV. Apple reportedly wants to "erase the distinction between live and on-demand content" through a revamped device, and users are expected to be able to start any show at any time regardless of what kind of content it is. According to Bloomberg, there has been a "tussle for control" over who gets to decide what the product's interface looks like. (Raise your hand if you think Apple is demanding full control over the UI.) Similarly, the two sides are also apparently split on whether the device would be sold directly to consumers or "leased through cable providers," as has typically been the case with cable boxes. Again, it would hardly be a surprise to learn that Apple would like to be able to sell its own product to buyers directly, but it's possible the cable companies may eventually negotiate a deal that would allow both sides to sell or lease the product.

[pscates2.0]

File under "no shit...what do you people honestly expect?!"

[Eugene]

So basically what's going to happen is Apple will sell the device at retail, but we'll still end up paying a monthly premium for the new hybrid cable service as if it were an additional hardware rental fee.

[Brave Ulysses]

How does TV work in Europe? (and other major markets)

Is it similar to the US setup? Is internet service separate from tv service?

I'm just curious since all Apple TV talk is entirely US centric and its weird to me as Apple's biggest growth is outside the US these days.

I think Apple has a compelling argument for cable providers in the US.... I would think that eventually they could convince them that it is more lucrative to manage and charge for the pipe, rather than be the content deal providers and managers. There seems to be an ever expanding number of channels, regional sports networks, etc.... and everyone wants more money yet the cable companies have seemingly reached price points that can't really go higher.

[Eugene]

TV in Europe is structured similarly. You buy a cable TV, internet, phone separately or bundled. The technologies in use however are different. For TV they use DVB-C while in the US we use ATSC. For cable modems they use EuroDOCSIS instead of DOCSIS.

Cable providers are still very much the partial owners / middlemen when it comes to content. I don't think this will change with Apple's involvement. If Apple really wanted to be the content provider, they would have snapped up some media properties by now...like Disney's studios.

[wtd]

I think the most compelling case to be made for Apple doing this at this point in time is simply that all of the TV manufacturers are starting to add similar functionality in. Now, I don't think any of it is as good, but it's going to be what new TV owners see by default, and it's going to make it harder to justify the expense and added hardware of an Apple TV box when the built-in features do 75% of the job at no extra cost.

The obvious solution? Apple makes their own line of TV(s) with the current or improved Apple TV functionality built-in.

Of course, if the Apple TV is still seen as a hobby, and ultimately unimportant, then there's no point taking on the massive overhead of selling their own TVs. Let Samsung, Panasonic, and company own the "smart TV" market for now.

[Partial]

Here's my thought process:

I love the idea of an Apple TV because I think they have the muscle and leverage to finally make the "carriers" suck less. I want a dumb pipe. Pretty much everyone does. No one likes paying to lease a DVR. No one likes paying a bogus DVR activation fee (I already pay to lease the box, why do I have to pay to use the service it provides when it doesn't cost the carrier anything?). No one likes the idea of cable cards, etc.

If I can buy an Apple Television and don't have to pay a monthly fee for a cable card, or pay a monthly premium for DVR, etc, that's a win. I don't want to have a bunch of crap plugged in via HDMI cables.

If I buy an Apple television set and still end up paying 20$ a month for DVR service or what have you, that is not a win. The cable company isn't leasing me the box, so they don't have any additional cost.

I think if Apple does this and sells you one television set where I plug in a single coaxial cable and I have HD, menus, etc all looking and functioning beautifully without a bunch of additional fees from the cable carrier, this will be an epic win and they will sell an awful lot of them. I know that I would gladly pay 1000 dollars up front (instead of 500 for a Vizio or something) to avoid having to pay 30 bucks a month in various fees from the cable company.

[Partial]

Gene Munster calling for the television set again.

So, does Apple really need the cable carriers on board if the killer app is essentially ala-carte channels? Couldn't they go to the Channels and pitch making an app? I mean, if Apple is literally going to make a fancy interface for cable, I don't think it's a game changer as people already have HDTVs.

I mean, what if this is really just a television box that DOESN'T use cable? Sure, you could hook-up an external cable box via HDMI or something, but... I guess Apple wants this thing to have a power cable plugged into the wall and that's it. Having apps for each individual channel seems like a killer app. Buy them individually. That is a huge deal, I think.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Partial Gene Munster calling for the television set again. So, does Apple really need the cable carriers on board if the killer app is essentially ala-carte channels? Couldn't they go to the Channels and pitch making an app? I mean, if Apple is literally going to make a fancy interface for cable, I don't think it's a game changer as people already have HDTVs. I mean, what if this is really just a television box that DOESN'T use cable? Sure, you could hook-up an external cable box via HDMI or something, but... I guess Apple wants this thing to have a power cable plugged into the wall and that's it. Having apps for each individual channel seems like a killer app. Buy them individually. That is a huge deal, I think.

I'm confident that is the point but there are multiple problems that you are missing.

1. The internet likely comes from the cable company... at least most internet service here in america that is fast enough would. Cable companies will make their money and restrict speeds/price levels to protect their business/revenue/profit.

2. Content deals are very complex and many channels/content providers have complex deals with cable providers and other mediums. This is why a large majority of "channel apps" actually require you to have an active cable tv subscription in order to access their streaming content. HBO isn't going to be able to simply offer Apple TV users a pay per month subscription.

[Brave Ulysses]

This guy has pretty much nailed what I would expect from an Apple TV set..... it's so dead-on in my opinion that I would be very disappointed if Apple came out with anything less than this!

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/25/3...ple-tv-concept

[alcimedes]

wow, for something that's not real, that's pretty well thought out, and very clean looking. Actually looks like a plausible UI.

[Brave Ulysses]

It's pretty damn good.

Of course, the content displayed on the screens would never be possible with today's ridiculous cable content monopolies.

[Yontsey]

I would pay a lot of money for a TV/cable setup like that.

[Brave Ulysses]

The fact that developers can already do this:
http://www.redwindsoftware.com/push-it/#article1

and also create Apple TV games like Real Racing 2 makes me really think there is a lot of potential for Apple beyond traditional content deals and details.

[Brave Ulysses]

Latest rumor round up:

1. Apple may be interested in acquiring German tv maker Loewe. They make beautiful TVs but I can't see why Apple would be interested in them. Apple can obviously make a beautiful tv too. Loewe's talent and strength seem match Apple's. So, not sure I see this rumor panning out.

2. An analyst is speculating today that an Apple TV SDK will be announced at a special event in March. Too much weird stuff going on in this news bit to put much trust into it. But, I hope it is correct. An SDK will really make the Apple TV explode.


I really can't come to terms with how I see Apple doing this though. In my mind, keeping Apple TV a cheap box makes the most sense and has the best chance for success. The iPad and iPhone will become the brains and AirPlay will be the magic. There is a lot of potential here and some developers are already doing it via workarounds. If Apple can make a better SDK for both the iPad and the Apple TV to work together, the sky is the limit as far as I can tell for app potential. There is no need for the TV box to be that powerful. All it needs is to be able to stream the content.

But.... on the other hand, it just seems so against Apple's approach to markets to not have dedicated high margin hardware.

[Partial]

Legit Question:

Will Apple go against the iPhone principal and go with a hardware, fixed button game pad? If so, I think it's game over for the console makers.