Apple TV Rumor Mill on Fire/this the end of TiVo???

Discussion in 'TiVo Coffee House - TiVo Discussion' started by Joe3, Oct 25, 2011.

  1. aadam101

    aadam101 Tell me a joke

    7,114
    12
    Jul 14, 2002
    Massachusetts
    As I understand it cable networks are paid by cable companies a share of the subscription fee. I just read on another forum that AMC gets $.75 per month per subscriber. What is stopping the cable network from providing the channel via internet through an Apple device and charging you directly and cutting out the cable company?

    How much would you pay for a monthly channel? I bet it's more than .75. I could live with 10-20 channels. Even if they $2 per channel, thats only $20-$40.

    Cable companies have resisted a la carte offerings for years. There is certainly a market for this. I would imagine this could be VERY popular.
     
  2. rainwater

    rainwater Active Member

    7,066
    5
    Sep 21, 2004
    Because they get that fee per subscriber. They are well aware that they make more per subscriber, than they would in a ala carte method no matter what distribution method is chosen.

    The networks DON'T want to cut out the middle man because that is how they make their money.
     
  3. jfh3

    jfh3 Active Member

    4,471
    2
    Apr 15, 2004
    Denver area
    Not at $3 an episode, like a lot of the HD shows are today. Sell me a season for $20, maybe.
     
  4. garys

    garys New Member

    62
    0
    Feb 1, 2002
    Exactly.
     
  5. Grakthis

    Grakthis New Member

    828
    1
    Oct 4, 2006
    This might be the worst thread on the internet. Might be.
     
  6. takeshi

    takeshi Member

    197
    0
    Jul 22, 2010
    Getting VoD points out its limitations to me. What makes you think that Apple will be able to negotiate instant access to all broadcast content? You can "think out of the box" all you want but you're actually just daydreaming as every other prior identical thread to this one has.

    How many have indicated that they actually want Apple?

    Sure but that doesn't mean that is no longer their goal with their products.

    It's very easy. In the editor, click the link button: [​IMG] then paste the link. Failing that you can just paste the URL as text in your message.

    Not by a long shot. It's down there but certainly not at the very bottom. The internet is vast. There's no way you've read every thread out there.
     
  7. aaronwt

    aaronwt UHD Addict

    23,185
    1,127
    Jan 31, 2002
    Northern...
    I see no way an apple Television could replace my TiVo. I certainly have no desire to be locked in to using iTunes. And Apple certainly will not be able to store the 50TB+ of content I have for me to use.
     
  8. Grakthis

    Grakthis New Member

    828
    1
    Oct 4, 2006
    I think the worst part about this thread, is the occasional comment that essentially equates to "I know other companies have tried it, and I know Apple is woefully unequipped to enter this market where other players have been fighting with media companies for a decade now, and I know Apple has tried and failed here before... BUT IT'S APPLE OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THEY CAN DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

    Get real.

    If it were possible to have a true streaming content solution to replace cable, Netflix would have thrown all of their dollars at it and we'd have it.

    Content providers get all of their money from Cable. They have no incentive to cut that cord.
     
  9. SullyND

    SullyND W: 33-9 (Camping World Bowl) TCF Club

    11,520
    1,634
    Dec 30, 2004
    Chicago Burbs
    Didn't the story go that Apple originally approached VZW with the iPhone, but VZW wouldn't make the concessions they wanted, so they went to ATT instead?

    If Apple approaches Cable Companies with the iPhone model of a box, I'd think they could say something about how easy cablecard would have to be.

    That said, Dish or DirecTV would be an easier sell on a national level.
     
  10. jeff92k7

    jeff92k7 Annoyed with trolls

    341
    2
    Jan 18, 2006
    on planet earth
    Not really. Uverse content comes in on a broadband connection with much higher rates than that. In fact, I think the slowest provsioning package they offer is a 19Mb down/2Mb up package. The highest (when I had them) was a 32/5 package. My line speed would support up to 60Mb down, but as the 32/5 package was the highest they offered, that's what I was set up with. Of that 32Mb down, up to 24 would be allocated for TV content. Each HD stream takes about 5.5-6Mb of bandwidth, so 4 HD streams at 6Mb each would total 24Mbps of the total 32. The remaining 8Mbps would be used for my internet, which in my case, was rated at up to 12Mbps, though they offer internet speeds of up to 24Mbps.

    Here's where it gets a little confusing. The TV content takes priority on the bandwidth, so if you are using 24Mbps for tv, then you will only get 8Mbps left over for internet, regardless of what speed you are paying for. If you only watch 1 or 2 channels (tv streams), then bandwidth is freed for internet usage. If you also have phone service, then the small amount of bandwidth it uses will actually take priority over all other services. So, the priority order of badnwidth usage is phone, then TV, then internet; but all have to share the same 32Mbps mximum bandwidth.

    So...all that to say: tv content is not using your internet bandwidth, per se. It is isolated in it's own streams, though the streams do take priority over internet bandwidth on the total line bandwidth. If you stream Netflix, pandora or any other internet content, that comes out of your internet bandwidth alottment.

    This is part of the reason I don't have them anymore. They also would throttle Netflix streaming, even though they would swear up and down that they don't do any throttling. However, I repeatedly saw it and monitored it. Once they instituted bandwidth caps on the internet bandwidth usage (not applied to uverse tv content), I had enough. They want to restrict people from using any other video content provider but their own. This, to me, is the definition of being anti-competitive and why I dropped them.

    So in summary, if you have a 12Mbps internet alottment (based on your post), then that is internet only, not their TV content. Their TV content uses other bandwidth.

    ETA: Additionally, their on-demand content is not compressed as much as the regular TV content. Thier on-demand content is usually around 8Mbps (vs 6 for broadcast HD - which shouldn't even be enough to be called HD). The on-demand content uses the same, non capped portion of the bandwidth that the normal TV services do...which also leads to the anti-competitive views. Lastly, remembering the remote layout and menu layout of thier DVR, it is clear that they want people to use their on-demand stuff as much as, if not more than, the normal DVR. This way, they make money on the TV package, make more money on the on-demand content, and charge you overage fees if you exceed your internet bandwidth cap from using other content providers. Grrr....just stay away from uverse!!

    Jeff
     
  11. jeff92k7

    jeff92k7 Annoyed with trolls

    341
    2
    Jan 18, 2006
    on planet earth
    I personally like the idea of Apple getting into the TV market. Any competition for customer dollars is going to benefit the customer, by giving more options, decreasing costs among providers, and possibly delivering new methods of watching content. I agree that Apple products are generally overpriced and I have yet to actually purchase any content from iTunes, but if Apple does nothing more than scare other TV providers into being more competitive, then I see it as a good thing.

    I am whole-heartedly against monopolized markets so anything that gives the customer another choice is a good thing. Besides, Apple tends to do things more from a customer perspective...what will be easy for the customer, what will the customers want, etc. Whereas, most tv providers are all about making themselves more money...what can we charge the customer for today, what can we change to get more money from the customer, etc.

    This is why I love TiVo. As imperfect as they may be, they are still far and away better than any other DVR system out there and are as close to being that one-box media hub as I can find right now. They got here by working from a customer perspective and making products that customers wanted and were easy to use. If Apple comes into this market, or changes the way we "do tv", great. If TiVo wants to compete, then they will need to innovate again - which is what made them popular to begin with. If TiVo does not, and Apple kills them off, then so be it. At least we'll have progress in the market and may even have a different, easier way to consume TV content.

    Jeff
     
  12. jcthorne

    jcthorne Well-Known Member

    3,116
    196
    Jan 28, 2002
    Houston
    As long as AT&T, Comcast and Time Warner OWN the network bandwidth, cloud based VOD will never be financially feasable. Streaming just uses too much bandwidth. Streaming everything would use WAY too much bandwidth.
     
  13. rage777

    rage777 Member

    100
    0
    Aug 19, 2006
    I don't trust any of my data to be "in the cloud". I would rather have my data in my personal possesion for me to protect, not some hacker to get at. Apple isn't the best company to be protecting anything.
     
  14. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,944
    607
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    I think people should actually take the time to read some of the speculation articles, here are links to 3 of them, I am sure there are many more:
    1. Bloomberg
    2. Washington Post with Bloomberg
    3. Sydney Morning Herald
    The bottom line is Apple is likely going to build a SMART TV no mention of a DVR anywhere.

    Apple will be competing with the likes of Samsung, Sony, & Panasonic in the Smart TV business NOT TiVo in the smart DVR business.

    If you want to make the case that streaming via smart TVs or stand alone streaming devices is going to eliminate the need for a DVRs go for it. I don't believe it will happen anytime soon.

    Thanks,
     
  15. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    8,923
    736
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    Unless you go to much greater lengths than most individual users do to protect your data, the cloud is probably safer.
     
  16. dlfl

    dlfl Cranky old novice

    8,923
    736
    Jul 6, 2006
    Dayton OH
    Yes.... smart Apple .... good Apple! I would modify your statement as follows:

    There is no possible way to make a product with a CableCard or Tuning Adapter that is as hassle-free as any product needs to be.
     
  17. Grakthis

    Grakthis New Member

    828
    1
    Oct 4, 2006
    I have Uverse and Netflix and I've experienced no throttling of my Netflix... I get full picture quality that looks great on a 55'' LED. I also don't stream more than 5 hours a week.

    YMMV.
     
  18. Grakthis

    Grakthis New Member

    828
    1
    Oct 4, 2006
    Smart TVs are the worst idea.

    TVs should run for decades. Computers and media boxes have lifespans measured in a few years before they are obsolete or dead.

    I have "apps" on my Vizio and they are awful, cause random reboots, are slow and I already know they will be out of date in 3 years. But I don't mind, because they aren't core to the TV. I just disable them. I bought a TV, not a media box... the apps were just a throwaway feature that I didn't pay any extra for compared to the market price.

    TV manufacturers have already started announcing they have no interest in pursuing the "smart TV" market, because it's DOA.
     
  19. rainwater

    rainwater Active Member

    7,066
    5
    Sep 21, 2004
    Huh? I think you have it backwards. Many of them have basically announced they are moving to their own platform. Smart tvs aren't going away.
     
  20. atmuscarella

    atmuscarella Well-Known Member

    6,944
    607
    Oct 11, 2005
    Rochester NY
    From my point of view my TV could just be a monitor with 1 HDMI port. I run all my devices into an Onkyo receiver and don't even use my TVs speaker. This thread started with the premise that having Apple enter the Smart TV business was somehow going to put TiVo out of the DVR business. I was just pointing that out.

    I actually believe it will be a good thing if Apple does start building Smart TVs, it could help that market evolve into something and as others have said more competition is good.

    I just don't understand the logic of why anyone thinks a Smart TV or even a stand alone streaming device replaces a DVR. Maybe someday when we all have rock solid GB Internet connection with no band width caps, but not anytime soon.
     

Share This Page