Apple building satellite-based content delivery system?

“Apple has a huge opportunity to capitalize on the iPod’s success while competing with Napster’s subscription services and the satellite radio industry. If Apple launched a satellite radio network that allowed for an all you can eat music library, Apple would one-up Napster by allowing consumers to access this service anywhere they are… whether it be in the car, on their boat or on foot. With the satellite network is in place, Apple would also compete with the other satellite networks by allowing amateur and professional broadcasters to upload their broadcasts to its network,” Kelly McNeill writes for

Full article here.

Last Monday, we posted an article linking to a Mac OS Rumors report: “”The more we look into these developing rumors of Apple’s planned [HD Video Network] (HDVN) content delivery system, with each new report this is becoming one of the biggest stories in our 11 years dishing dirt — right up there with Mac OS X, the iMac, the iPod….yeah, that big. Seriously. Apple’s interest in satellite HD content delivery has become more than obvious. Just a note to Phil Schiller and company: your (potential) competitors are taking notice! Just because Apple rebuffed Sirius is by no means an indication that Apple isn’t interested in satellite content delivery. Apple just doesn’t want to piggback on someone else’s network — they’re interested in building their own on existing satellites and potentially launching more than one of their own in the next few years as well”

Related MacDailyNews articles:
RUMOR: Apple building satellite-based High Defintion Video Delivery system – March 21, 2005


  1. Outside of ITMS, Apple’s attemps at content delivery haven’t fared as well as their software/hardware combos.

    eWorld. And what was the “service” that they set up for Apple approved websites that were kid friendly? That failed miserably.

  2. >>Motorola Iridium

    Nope but Iridium can be had cheap. If the bandwidth is there. Instant sat. network.

    I just wonder if Apple will sell battery operated transceivers for Powerbooks. It won’t be real time(sat. lag sucks) but it will be close enough.

  3. Gee…and all I want is a (dual quad) 3+Ghz Power Mac…
    Why does one get the feeling that 99% of Apple´s resources have been shifted to the iPod dept???

  4. Having an HD Network at their disposal should open up a huge market.
    Imagine being able to upload your HD or even DV footage, or using the network just for showing your clients your current projects in real time.
    The possibilities are endless. I am wondering why apple with the new upcoming codec in Tiger don’t offer video on demand. They already have the backend applications on the Mac and PC platform in addition of having iTunes already installed on quite a few machines. I am not sure what they are waiting for. The door is wide open. We also have to remember one of the big advantages of Apple is Video and Sound. If Apple doesn’t do it Microsoft will certainly do it earlier or later.

  5. The purpose of iTMS was to sell more hardware. In that it has succeeded magnificently. As a business proposition on it’s own, it’s margins are too thin for it to succeed. Look at the other online music stores struggle to survive, and watch Napster crash and burn. Also TiVO.

    Apple will only get into the content business to help it sell hardware.

    Where is the new hardware? if there was any, then we’d have a story here. Without it, this is just another rumor. BTW, still waiting for that OS X port to x86 chips…

  6. Steve Jobs is well-known for his wanting to control ‘the whole widget’ and that would include any content delivery system to your Mac. Is it true? Maybe. Could it happen? Yes. Is the technology there? Yes. Does Apple have the money to make a go of it? Yes.

  7. To TheRealist,

    Wireless iPods, video tablets, home entertainment devices, etc, are all rumored products that would make a satellite video content delivery service (iFlix Video Store) make sense.

    But the pieces are slowly moving into place to make it possible – long-enough battery life for wireless in a pocket-sized mobile device, high-quality video compression for fast delivery, fast-enough home wireless network to stream around the house. Maybe in six months to a year?

    Apple still would not own the content. They would be a brand-name channel for the real content owners. So the Apple hardware has to be compelling enough to make the content owners come to Apple instead of trying to do it themselves (or with Microsoft and partners).

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.