“There have been rumors of an actual Apple television ever since Steve Jobs told his biographer that he’d “cracked” the interface problem, but it’s never been anywhere close to reality — you can’t make a successful TV without actual TV programming, and getting that programming has usually meant you have to plug in a cable or satellite box,” Nilay Patel reports for The Verge. “It doesn’t matter who builds your TV if you’re forced to use Comcast’s cable box; you’ll never see Apple’s interface anyway.”
“What Apple and the others have really needed is deals with all the TV networks to pipe in their channels directly, but it’s never been able to get them — many TV networks are owned by cable companies, and no cable company wants to give up control of that primary interface,” Patel reports. “But that might all change soon. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler just proposed a rule change that would require cable and broadcast networks to sell their programming to any company that wants to be a TV provider, not just cable or satellite companies.”
Read more in the full article here.
Never happen.
If this happens it will be another big win for Obama.
Huh? What does this have to do with Obama?
Tom Wheeler was appointed by Obama.
Regardless, that does not make the G Spank’s useless comment any more useful or relevant. Yet another example of “political Tourette’s Syndrome” expressing itself on this forum.
I am with MacCowboy on this one. Talk about the merits of the concept.
For instance, just because a company is forced to make its programming available does not mean that there will be a viable business case for purchasing and independently distributing that content. Who defines the value/cost of each channel? If it is Comcast, then I guarantee that the cost of individual channels will make the Comcast bundle seem like a gift in terms of cost. Furthermore, what about the internet carrier fees? Netflix has already had to begin paying for bandwidth in order to avoid throttling. Do you think that Comcast would refrain from doing the same (or worse) to anyone interested in independent TV content distribution. It is a nice idea, but a long way from a mature, workable concept.
The question was what does this have to do with Obama.
Asked and answered.
To your points though:
“Who defines the value/cost of each channel?”
Market rates. Comcast can charge whatever it wants for a channel as long as it doesn’t charge one price to Dish and another to Time Warner or anyone else.
“Netflix has already had to begin paying for bandwidth in order to avoid throttling”
No they haven’t. You’ve completely misunderstood what’s going on between Netflix and Comcast/Verizon. Read this:
http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-comcast-deal-explained-2014-2
Oh I hope so, that way more of the readers on here and can get their news from a comedy/ entertainment channel. That’s important for factually equipped voters and adults. In other words who cares, no matter what apple thinks they have for an interface it has to be better than iTunes, for the last three versions Siri, ( most voice commands require the human to speak like a robot using a silly command library even Siri is guilty of this. And as far as the visual delivery issues, most of their 27″ iMac displays ( retentivity issues) have not been addressed by apple. Now a high priced TV with all these issues won’t sell but to the blind. I guess there are enough Apple early adopters that can throw lots of useless cash at an albatross.
tv will never be something apple will change and do well with. Look at the other high end TV manufacturers. Ohh wait where did they all go?
Mark my words fan boy if it is to be a fully integrated set costing twice that of a value packed mainstream Samsung, lg, Visio, TV it will fail. There will always be those that buy Apple products no matter what it is. But those same kind of buyers narrow as the products deliver diminishing returns, remember Sony? They once made their own TV. Now they source samsungs innards and Sony used to rule the entertainment consumer electronics industry.
As much as I would like Apple to succeed Apple is now entering an area that is just a completely different beast.
Apple would be best to just make an Apple play interface like they have for car make a set top box and let the TV manufacturers compete on performance price wars as they have for decades..
At least the last paragraph contained some sense, I thought it was going to be complete bollocks all the way down for a bit. Success out of the jaws of disaster, good for you.
Why will this never happen? And why is this a big win for Obama?
How is this any different than wanna-be energy (ie Ambit) and telephone providers having access to content but in reality only becoming another faux distributor or middleman?
This is what can happen when you have a connected politician on your board. Laws can be manipulated in your favor.
1. I don’t see the point of an Apple TV set. There is no profit in it. The current Apple TV hub is very good because it can used on any digital TV and can be easily updated.
2. The cable lobby will kill the deal for new legislation.
Even if this goes through, they most likely could sell the service at noncompetitive pricing which would negate the issue.
This would be amazing for consumers and perhaps usher in a la carte TV programming.
Apple should just make a display with a DisplayPort connector.
Use it for a TV or one hell of a computer monitor.
Apple should add OTA tuners and a disk to their AppleTV STB.