“Apple is working on a new TV set. This we know,” Evan Niu writes for The Motley Fool.
“It may even arrive sooner than you think,” Niu writes. “There is talk that Apple wants to allow subscribers to customize their own channel lineups, which would be a key differentiator for viewers who are disgruntled about having to pay for bundled channel packages that include shows they’ll never watch (I’m looking at you, Discovery Communications’ TLC, and your Toddlers & Tiaras or 19 Kids and Counting).”
“The current Apple TV set-top box uses an A4 chip, and continuing to use ARM chips also opens up another important possibility: running iOS apps. By using the same chip architecture, it would be possible for Apple’s new TV to run games and apps currently available with some tweaking. Developers would need to adjust resolutions and likely change control schemes, since I doubt the new Apple TV will be a massive 32-inch or 37-inch capacitive touchscreen. But I expect a Siri-powered iPhone remote anyway, and some game developers already use AirPlay for gaming, making your iPad or iPhone the controller,” Niu writes. “The possibility to choose a customized channel lineup and play iOS games on power-efficient custom chips? Yes, please.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote last April, the app is the channel: “Content producers should get to work then on producing their own apps, as ESPN has done already for their channels… We’ll make a folder of them on our iOS devices and it’ll look and act just like the channel lineup.”
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Ellis D.” for the heads up.]
Pay only for the channels I actually want? What a concept! Count me in!
Problem is they’ll think of a way to get you to pay for things that roughly is what it is now and you’ll get less for the same money. I hope it works out. I hate the fact I can’t even re-order the favorite listings I have first on my cable GUI and must navigate hither and yon to find anything. That would change with an Apple iTV. There probably won’t be “channel numbers” at all but icons or logos of cable networks.
“You’ll get less for the same money”
Perhaps. But if this is the case, then people won’t buy it. I think people will not mind paying a little more – if they get more of what they want. I will not mind losing what I don’t want.
Won’t happen. Cable companies have lots of pull and they don’t want pay for what you want.
I’m thinking they said that about iTunes also… Record companies have lots of pull and don’t want pay for single tracks… they want you to buy the whole album.
Oh yeah… how did that work out?
Unless cable companies can and are willing to migrate to the next paradigm, their survival ‘won’t happen’. Bank on Apple upending another business model. Oh, right. They’ve never done that before.
If you mean Apple has never upended a previous business model, you’re full of BS. Take iTunes for example – the previous business model was record companies and record/cd stores, now it’s individual artist publishing and online purchasing. If in need of more proof, please look at the copycats.
You really are slow aren’t you
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer
not the most bloated piece of software in the microsoft portfolio
Read his comment 1 more time Daggar. Or maybe twice if you need to.
Agreed, and, with my saw in hand, I might say:
Measure twice, cut once.
You just pretending to be a moron or is that for real?
As someone who knows the cable business the issue isn’t the Cable companies it it the channels themselves. All channels are owned by companies with multiple channels. These companies require bundling because no-one (or a small amount of subscribers) would subscribe to some of their channels. Example: Halmark Channel which is owned by Crown Media Holdings who happen to own all of the Discovery Channels. The cable company is required to bundle the Halmark Channel with any package that contains their popular channels.
ZAKsPop: what is an album if not the bundling of unpopular songs with popular songs? Yes iTunes plowed through that one.
The question is if AAPL can do to TV what it did to music, knowing that TV will be more resistant to change having seen the kind of BAGL disruption that occurred in music.
I don’t know man; I know a lot of girls who would buy the Hallmark Channel.
The only problem with the Hallmark Channel is women expect men to think and act like the emasculated heroes on the Hallmark Channel.
What cable companies increasingly have in their moat is content on one end (Comcast/NBC) and the internet pipes on the other (Comcast is a major ISP).
AAPL needs both.
FCC rules that prevent cable companies from “hoarding” service haven’t been tested like they will likely be tested for an Apple TV based on a FLAN model of distribution.
For many of us, the cable company is our ISP.
We are required to purchase a cable TV plan (even if it is the lowest tier, otherwise free over the air channels only) before we can add broadband Internet to our account.
You’re damn straight the cable companies have pull, and it’s not likely to go away any time soon.
That’s a power the record companies never had.
My company will sell the HSD without video. We are actually revamping our plant to support the increase in our HSD subscriber base. In the past 5 years we have increased our HSD bandwidth 5 fold.
Talking to a remote is a non-starter. Just because it is new doesn’t mean it is suitable for everything.
If they don’t make the profits from bundling a bunch of crap content, then they will attempt to make it up by jacking with the data distribution channels. There are too many $B at stake for these corporations to accept defeat without a fight.
I still, STILL don’t believe will make a standalone television set.
Seems simpler & less expensive to just make an improved tv set-top box.
Ditto
TV is crap. Just the monitor thanks.
Wow that was a very insightful comment. Thanks for sharing your opinion with us because we all wanted to hear that… Seriously, If your gonna make a really dumb pointless comment use twitter. Some of us here went to college.
If Apple makes a TV set, it’ll just get its ass ripped wide open and raped soundly by Samsung (more so than in mobile phones), LG, Sony and Panasonic, and any number of existing manufacturers.
Ain’t gonna happen unless Tim Cook has gone mad and prefers to piss away billions for nothing.
BLN,
“If Apple makes a TV set, it’ll just get its ass ripped wide open and raped soundly by Samsung (more so than in mobile phones)”.
While Apple is famous for taking the mundane and changing the rules, it does so in a way that does not violate physics or the laws of economics. And Apple is not getting its ass ripped, its profits that make things work, not losing money market share, just ask any of the big companies that are saying they are leaving the tablet market… or making very little money in phones, etc.
But a standard tv is not a money maker and most people will not buy a very expensive one. My thought is that if Apple does a tv set, it will be thru an existing tv maker and Apple will allow special circuit boards to be installed to make it AppleTV approved. Also a new Atv box.
Just my guess.
We have the same guess
If Apple can line up the content, I am sure several TV manufactures would love to hop on the Apple train
BLN is Zune Tang.
Be careful what you pray for! This could be more expensive than what you currently pay.
Apple has a new TV?? wow i wish I knew about this BEFORE Christmas!
While this seems interesting and all, I might want to wait a bit and see what people who buy it think.
Even though I know Apple will have a strong impact on the market with new and easy to use technologies, it is their first go into a new market and since it is new technology, the odds of it having a bug or two may be higher.
Yes, apple is pretty good at dealing with things like these, but not even they are a perfect company so there is no harm in making sure.
Q. Do you know why you can’t get an iOS Channel Listings app that allows you to select only the *programs* you like to watch, while deleting all the rest?
A. Because the media moguls see the listings guide itself as prime advertising and seeing as they provide the listings data, they own the *rights* to how it is used. They issue takedown orders to any developer who contravenes their rules. Modification by channel is allowed, but not by program.
Q. Do you know why free iOS Listings apps and internet guides do not allow simply clicking a link to remotely record or switch channels?
A. Because “TV Guide” holds the market rights to these features, royalties would be required if HTML links with actions were included. The end customer MUST PAY A MONTHLY FEE for these features. This fee is included in your cablevision monthly charges.
Q, Do you know why channels are offered in bundles?
A. Because gov’t telecommunications organizations mandate Cable companies and ISPs do this this in order to bolster minority interest channels that otherwise might fail.
Q. Do you know why this article writer is full of crap?
A. Because he didn’t do his homework, is ignorant of the money flow (payola schemes), and the fact that it’s not just the media moguls but the ISPs as well, plus a host of supporting services, AND the government.
There’s a ton of reasons Steve Jobs called mainstream TV a big bag of hurt. There’s no simple “run-around”. If you try, you’ll be instantly sued into oblivion by every industry including the local government agencies.
If Apple has a secret, then it must be something everyone in the industry will be on-board with once it begins, with all the royalty and support flows in place. That means it will not be free but *may* be marginally less expensive for a paltry few who don’t view much broadcast TV.
Well thought out reply and you are covering all the behind the scenes items.
But…… while I do not think Apple will do an Apple TV, I think they may work with an existing tv maker to all circuity that is Apple approved to add functionality. Just a thought.
Not to be a stick in the mud but:
Could it be possible that Apple won’t offer TV channels as they are now? It’s seems to me that Apple will most likely offer individual channels through iTunes. You will then be able to download/stream from them when you want.
It’s plausible. That’s all. Perhaps it’ll be more complex than that but that’s my rough concept of what they may do.
The only problem: I don’t watch channels. Neither does anyone I know.
I watch certain programs, and I don’t care (much) about which channel those programs are on.
Currently, I cut the cord. I don’t have a cable TV plan, but iTunes allowed me to buy just the programs themselves (well, at least most of them). For me, an Apple TV would be a lot (a LOT) less interesting if it would still force me to see channels.
I just bought an Apple TV on the 27th, it really is a wicked piece of kit.
Prediction: Since Apple is probably working with content providers behind the scenes as we speak (to get them to push content via the internet), I predict that the Apple TV will leverage the antenna technology that Apple has utilized with the iPhone- it will have an HD antenna, which would allow everyone to bypass the cable and satellite companies altogether. That would be a fantastic product, IMO.
Apple could work out a deal to be a virtual wired network operator- a cable/fiber equivalent of an ISP and gain a national footprint via the TelCos and Cable outfits. Pay in bulk for clearance and resell- like a wired version of an MVNO.
The killer is distribution and the cable companies do not want to sell unbundled nor does the cartel that controls the bulk of cable programming. Maybe leveraging some of that cash pile to the cable and Telcos for access could work out. A no interest 10 year loan in exchange for access to a network at sweetheart rates could be a win for all involved.
What if Apple just change the way we choose the program with Siri?
S: What you want to watch today?
Y: Sport please.
S: What kind of sport?
Y: Soccer
S: Your favourite team doesn’t play today, but there is two match right now, “*” and “*”. Which one do you want to see?
or
S: What do you want to watch today?
Y: I want to see any movie with Willem Dafoe in it
S: There is none today. But tomorrow he will appear on a movie called “*”, do you want me to remind you tomorrow on your iPhone?
The problem with Apple upending the cable TV providers is that most of those same providers are also the high-speed Internet providers, whom Apple needs or no one can use any service. Yes, there are other high-speed Internet providers, but if the cable companies decide to fight this rumored service by denying Apple bandwidth for AppleTV, then it will fail. That is a key difference between TV and the recording industry.
It’s possible Apple could go more granular and deal with show producers directly cutting out the networks/channels completely. In this case Apple would deal directly with Mike Rowe for “Dirty Jobs” and not Discovery Channel. Of course that would undermine “Dirty Jobs” airing on Discovery. Something like this may be Apple’s end game but not something they could start with. Once AppleTV achieves critical mass is when the individual producers would be able to cut the network umbilical.