Apple Cooking Up New $30 A Month TV Service? - But specifics seem awfully muddy for now...
Links: home · search · speed test · login · more ·
Links: New Topic
Forums »
baineschile @ 2nd Nov 03:04PM:
How many
How many times has apple-tv failed so far?
I think they underestimeate the infastructe and functionality they will need for a project like this.
reply
mystryfiostk @ 2nd Nov 03:04PM:
Bring it on.
Why it wouldn't be tied to apple tv is weird, though.
reply
karlmarx @ 2nd Nov 03:12PM:
Umm, this already exists
Granted, most people are paying closer to $65.00 a month, but once you've paid for your high speed interweb, there are places (evil places true), that will provide you with EVERY TV show, commercial free! And it's unlimited! I've checked, and I've already saved 1,651 Seasons of TV shows, made up of 23,651 Episodes, taking up 7.69 TB of storage space right now. Now, granted, I recorded them all with my HD DVR, and stripped out all the commercials, so it's all legal, but if I had the ability to get EVERY show I wanted, commercial free, in 720p format from the apple store, I would consider paying the $30.00/month. But only if the selection is better than I already have.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!
reply
syslock @ 2nd Nov 03:13PM:
Boo Hooo cable co's
Adapt with the times or die.
Same goes for the telco's.
Keep up, give the users what they want, or someone else will
come along and take your business from you.
reply
ISurfTooMuch @ 2nd Nov 03:15PM:
The more, the merrier
This is a great idea. The more of these broadband services we have, the more anti-competitive the cable companies and telcos will look if they try to place restrictions on them that favor their own offerings.
And I know I'm going to get replies about the cable companies and telcos being private businesses who can run their networks as they see fit. Yes, they are, but if they're all about doing whatever they like, then maybe they don't need access to public rights-of-way to lay cable. If they like unregulated capitalism so much, then let's see how they like having to negotiate rights with each landowner whose property they want to cross.
reply
Gbcue @ 2nd Nov 03:20PM:
Re: The more, the merrier
said by ISurfTooMuch :
This is a great idea. The more of these broadband services we have, the more anti-competitive the cable companies and telcos will look if they try to place restrictions on them that favor their own offerings.
And I know I'm going to get replies about the cable companies and telcos being private businesses who can run their networks as they see fit. Yes, they are, but if they're all about doing whatever they like, then maybe they don't need access to public rights-of-way to lay cable. If they like unregulated capitalism so much, then let's see how they like having to negotiate rights with each landowner whose property they want to cross.
Apple TV isn't a "broadband service".
As a matter of fact, you need a broadband connection in order for it to operate at all.
--
My BLOG!
Black Friday Ads
reply
anon @ 2nd Nov 03:26PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
So that's enough TV for 8 hours a day every day for 4 years.
Assuming each episode was 30 minutes.
Just one question. Do you actually watch all that crap?
reply
Eat Me @ 2nd Nov 03:25PM:
Caps an issue
Cable company caps will make this not viable for everyone except maybe FiOS users who already have a great TV service.
reply
openbox9 @ 2nd Nov 03:26PM:
Re: How many
Apple TV hasn't failed at all. In fact, given that Apple hasn't invested a lot of effort in the product, it seems to be doing relatively well. BTW, this rumor supposedly isn't dependent on the aTV.
reply
Vertickle @ 2nd Nov 03:27PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
said by karlmarx :
Granted, most people are paying closer to $65.00 a month, but once you've paid for your high speed interweb, there are places (evil places true), that will provide you with EVERY TV show, commercial free! And it's unlimited!
Link? ;)
reply
openbox9 @ 2nd Nov 03:29PM:
Re: Bring it on.
Because the iTunes market share greatly dwarfs the number of aTV devices on the market. Consumers aren't required to have an aTV now to purchase content through the iTS so I doubt that philosophy would change. I'm sure aTV wouldn't be excluded, just not required.
reply
ny_wolfie @ 2nd Nov 03:30PM:
Re: Caps an issue
Not every FIOS customer has TV. I've been waiting for 3 years to get TV as well and now with their announcement to freeze new roll-outs/franchise discussions I doubt if I'll ever see it.
reply
PhoenixDown @ 2nd Nov 03:30PM:
Re: How many
I actually like my Apple TV. It has room to grow (like supporting 1080p content) but I'm not at that point myself yet.
--
~ Insert a Funny Sig Here ~
reply
openbox9 @ 2nd Nov 03:33PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
karlmarx has previously stated that he doesn't watch all of the content that he obtains and that he has it only because he can.
reply
openbox9 @ 2nd Nov 03:36PM:
Re: The more, the merrier
said by Gbcue :
As a matter of fact, you need a broadband connection in order for it to operate at all.
I don't believe that to be true. There are people that utilize an aTV without downloading content from the Internet. You need a connection to the Internet if you want to purchase content from the iTS.
reply
IPPlanMan @ 2nd Nov 03:46PM:
Re: Caps an issue
Exactly right! Comcast's cap of 250GB is pretty paltry when you start talking about HD Content.... and considering it hasn't gone up in a year, I don't think they plan to raise it to keep you from cutting the "cable cord". Given that there's already a congestion management system to provide for a quality internet experience, it's absolutely 100% true that the reason for Comcast's internet cap is streaming HD video competition to their ondemand/premium channels from other sources like Hulu (soon to be HD), Vudu HD, Netflix HD, and iTunes/Apple TV HD.
Here's a response from Comcast when asked about this:
»Re: Bandwidth Limits/Congestion Management - All discussion here
:uhh:
--
"We're going to start at one end of (Fallujah), and we're not going to stop until we get to the other. If there's anybody left when that happens, we're going to turn around and we're going to go back and finish it."
Lt. Col. Pete Newell: 1st Inf. US Army
reply
Z80 @ 2nd Nov 03:48PM:
And the caps axe will kill it before it begins
ISPs, particularly those who are in video competition will simply cap this service out of competition. $30+ISP penalties will insure it is not competitive.
reply
iansltx @ 2nd Nov 03:51PM:
Re: Caps an issue
250GB is plenty for my TV habits...
reply
IPPlanMan @ 2nd Nov 03:51PM:
Re: And the caps axe will kill it before it begins
Again.... exactly right. I don't know what it is about people who are in support of caps in line with the cable co's when there's already a congestion management system in place (ie: Comcast) to keep things moving.
reply
IPPlanMan @ 2nd Nov 03:52PM:
Re: Caps an issue
You're missing the point here.
reply
iansltx @ 2nd Nov 03:53PM:
Re: Caps an issue
How big is HD video per hour? With good compression it's 1.5 GB per hour as far as I've seen. So you'd have to watch 120 hours per month at HD quality to start to approach the Comcast cap, even with doing other things on your connection.
If the cap was 175GB or less I'd be singing a different tune, but 250GB is a fair bit.
reply
Eat Me @ 2nd Nov 03:54PM:
Re: Caps an issue
said by iansltx :
250GB is plenty for my TV habits...
It won't be if you're using your internet connection as your primary TV service, unless you don't watch that much TV.
reply
iansltx @ 2nd Nov 03:54PM:
Re: Caps an issue
If Comcast was using caps as a punitive mesaure against all online video delivery right now, they wouldn't be a sponsor of Hulu and they would've set the caps lower.
reply
iansltx @ 2nd Nov 03:59PM:
Re: Caps an issue
Standard-def TV is about 400MB per hour, using *cough* industry standard compression techniques *cough*. That's 625 hours of TV per month at 250GB.
HD at 720p is around 1.5GB per hour as far as I can tell with decent quality in MKV format. So you're looking at 150+ hours of TV per month at 720p to break your cap.
Granted, Blu-Ray is upwards of 35 Mbps, OTA HD is about 15 Mbps, on-cable HD is about 12 Mbps and Sat HD is about 8 Mbps, versus ~3.5 Mbps for the above comparison. However nobody's doing that kind of HD programming over the internet anyway at this point.
reply
karlmarx @ 2nd Nov 04:04PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
Correct, I don't watch most of it. BUT, my systems are setup to record every tv show I select, automatically cut commercials, and save it. Since I have FIOS (50/50), I share it with all my friends and family, who do watch shows I don't. (aka Desperate Houswives and the like) Storage is cheap, I paid about $3500.00 for a 13.5 TB NAS (Well, I have 3 of them), I pay about $90.00 a month for FIOS, and I move about 1.8TB of data every month over that line. (Average speed is about 12,000kb/sec during nights, slower during day)
The benefit, is that if you are part of my VPN network (all my sisters are, and about 20 friends), you can browse to my server and watch any tv show you want whenever you want. Great for Kids, and the best part is, they don't need to have any technical skills to do it. (some of them have d-links, other Xbox-360's, they all work). I've setup their routers to VPN to my PIX, and voila, instant TV Shows on demand using a simple, not computer person type device. It's much easier for them, because I do all the technical stuff to make it all work, and they don't have to pay extra.
oh, I also have about 5000 movies, which I've copied to my server from the DVD.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!
reply
Eat Me @ 2nd Nov 04:04PM:
Re: Caps an issue
said by iansltx :
How big is HD video per hour? With good compression it's 1.5 GB per hour as far as I've seen. So you'd have to watch 120 hours per month at HD quality to start to approach the Comcast cap, even with doing other things on your connection.
If the cap was 175GB or less I'd be singing a different tune, but 250GB is a fair bit.
I wish I had Comcast's 250GB cap. My cap is 100GB.
reply
IPPlanMan @ 2nd Nov 04:05PM:
Re: Caps an issue
You are assuming that no one uses their internet connection for anything but television.... Why are you making that assumption?
reply
Eat Me @ 2nd Nov 04:06PM:
Re: Caps an issue
said by iansltx :
HD at 720p is around 1.5GB per hour as far as I can tell with decent quality in MKV format. So you're looking at 150+ hours of TV per month at 720p to break your cap.
What's it like for 1080i or 1080p?
reply
iansltx @ 2nd Nov 04:27PM:
Re: Caps an issue
:(
I was referencing Comcast's cap, not Prolog's.
reply
iansltx @ 2nd Nov 04:28PM:
Re: Caps an issue
I'm not. However if they're watching TV for that many hours they aren't going to be doiing anything else big on their connection :p
reply
iansltx @ 2nd Nov 04:29PM:
Re: Caps an issue
Not sure. I've yet to see any mainstream online content at that resolution. I'd expect the bitrate to be about 2x 720p though for 1080p, same for 1080i as 1080p.
reply
rendrenner @ 2nd Nov 04:29PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
and this is legal how?
reply
Skippy25 @ 2nd Nov 04:30PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
I think you have crossed the line of "so it's all legal" by sharing it.
reply
cdru @ 2nd Nov 04:33PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
said by rendrenner :
and this is legal how?
Until he shared it, it was fair use. Depending on where he lives, sharing it may at best legal, at worst illegal, or a legal gray area in between.
reply
cdru @ 2nd Nov 04:35PM:
Re: Boo Hooo cable co's
said by syslock :
Adapt with the times or die.
Remember that if/when per-byte billing gets implemented everywhere.
reply
karlmarx @ 2nd Nov 04:45PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
It's illegal how? I LEGALLY recorded the show that was BROADCAST OTA for FREE? Wait, it was FREE in the first place, you can't charge me with any 'theft' because what I am sharing HAS NO VALUE. Again, it was BROADCAST for FREE, please place a dollar value on something they gave me for FREE? Oh, wait. $0.00 dollars. Please tell me how you can go from FREE to NOT-FREE?
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!
reply
IPPlanMan @ 2nd Nov 05:00PM:
Re: Caps an issue
Maybe someone else lives in the house? Maybe 3 other people live in the house? What about using a SlingBox?
250GB split among 5 people is 50GB per person per month... which is the total cap for uploads/downloads.
That's not a lot to work with.
reply
AVonGauss @ 2nd Nov 05:13PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
He crossed the line several times by distribution, derivative work, etc... Thats assuming all of it was as stated as originating from OTA broadcasts, if some came from Sat/Cable/Internet it gets deeper.
I'm more impressed if he found 13.5 TB of stuff OTA worth recording...
reply
iansltx @ 2nd Nov 05:24PM:
Re: Caps an issue
Then you pay $25 per month to upgrade to business class. Comcast has reasonable biz-class prices and heavy users cost them more than light users. If you use more than 250GB you're a heavy user.
reply
IPPlanMan @ 2nd Nov 05:47PM:
Re: Caps an issue
It is clear that Comcast is afraid of residential users cutting the cord.
Why else have such a low cap when you can get many times the bandwidth for 30-40 dollars more a month, inclusive of the support/Microsoft email/Domain service?
So yeah... you're probably right on that figure: 25 dollars a month to start....
reply
bender @ 2nd Nov 05:52PM:
Re: How many
I'd love to get an apple tv, just don't have a tv that could hook up to it. the concept is awesome.
now if there was a linux version/ maybe even something android-ish i'd be all over it. why? b/c someone would hack it to be an outstanding device. thats why. w/ apple your kinda just stuck with whatever they decide it can do.
reply
bender @ 2nd Nov 05:52PM:
Re: Bring it on.
having aTV would enhance the experience, hopefully.
reply
bender @ 2nd Nov 05:56PM:
Re: Boo Hooo cable co's
i vote for die. cable shoiuld have died when they stopped making it commercial free.
reply
AstroBoy @ 2nd Nov 06:03PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
The sharing part. Not theft, but copyright infringement. Same reason you can't sing "Happy birthday" at a party.
But I love it. Can I be your friend???
Is it mythtv based?
What device do you use for display? 330 ION things?
reply
bender @ 2nd Nov 06:05PM:
Re: And the caps axe will kill it before it begins
why is there a congestion management system?
reply
IPPlanMan @ 2nd Nov 06:11PM:
Re: And the caps axe will kill it before it begins
To keep things moving....
»arstechnica.com/telecom/news/200···stem.ars
»customer.comcast.com/Pages/FAQVi···nagement
reply
RX300 @ 2nd Nov 06:14PM:
If Apple Would Hand Out Bandwidth
All Apple has done is suck up more bandwidth. When are going to do something about supplying some?? I could use a little more for my slow as h*** bottomed out DSL connection out here in the boonies.
reply
Transmaster @ 2nd Nov 06:21PM:
It is getting to the point....
I watch so much of my TV via the internet either downloading or direct viewing I am starting to wonder why I have my Dish Network system. I enjoy shows from the UK, such as Top Gear, Time Team, Stars at Night, etc. I presently have network TV as part of my package from Dish Network. I looked in on it for the first time in a couple of decades and I see I have not missed anything. To those of you who enjoy the programing on the History channels, Discovery, TLC. Science Channel, etc so much of the programing to be seen there comes from the UK originally. The difference is I don't have to wait a year or more to see it. I get it with in hours after it airs in the UK. Would I pay 30 bucks a month to Apple for their TV, HELL NO!!!!! But if could get a ala cart menu of UK televison that is something I might consider.
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption
reply
Z80 @ 2nd Nov 06:21PM:
Re: And the caps axe will kill it before it begins
Because they want to manage video competitors by controlling the amount (caps) and performance of (traffic shaping) content.
reply
karlmarx @ 2nd Nov 06:23PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
yep, 3 myth tv boxes (so I can record 3 at once). BUT, I got a samsung 52" DNLA enabled TV, so I don't need any 3rd party device to stream locally. I would HIGHLY recommend your next TV has DNLA built in, that way you can just plug it into your network, configure the IP of the server, and stream your shows right from your computer (I have a windows 7 machine that acts as a DNLA server too, so it streams all my media right to my tv).
What do you mean you can't sing happy birthday? That has GOT to be public domain by now. Oh, wait, mickey mouse wants copyright to last 'forever minus one day", right?
Just remember, GREED IS GOOD! "Greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves." Gordon Gekko got it right, I get MORE than I need or deserve, by living by his rules! Sharing Movies/Music/TV is the ultimate end result of a culture of greed, which is what Amerika has turned into. Don't blame the end users, blame the republicans who taught us that GREED IS GOOD! Copyrights infringe on my RIGHT to be greedy, so I choose to ignore them! All hail the GREED!
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!
reply
bender @ 2nd Nov 06:43PM:
Re: And the caps axe will kill it before it begins
said by Z80 :
Because they want to manage video competitors by controlling the amount (caps) and performance of (traffic shaping) content.
ok thats the only reason i can see it being necessary.
reply
jsz0 @ 2nd Nov 06:56PM:
Re: How many
said by baineschile :
I think they underestimeate the infastructe and functionality they will need for a project like this.
Apple already has the infrastructure. iTunes Store is the largest commercial online content distributor. Apple partners with two of the biggest CDNs (Akamai & Limelight) to deliver content. I imagine it would be easy for them to add more CDNs for future scalability. So Apple does have a lot of experience dealing with large distribution infrastructure. (also the iPhone App Store)
As for functionality the current incarnation of the Apple TV seems adequate. It's not really all that hard. Sort by genre/network/name, play/pause/stop, resume at last position, etc. This is all stuff Apple TV has done since 1.0. On the hardware side it's likely the Apple TV would make the jump to the iPhone/Touch SOC and become smaller & cheaper. $99-$149 is a good price point for the functionality it offers. (similar to the Roku Netflix box and on-par with iPod pricing)
Apple would need to expand their partnership with film & TV to offer more content if they want to handle all the distribution deals in-house. I suspect instead they would go for an App Store model for some programming hold outs. For example both the MLB & NBA have launched their "season pass" video services on the iPhone via the App Store model.
reply
jsz0 @ 2nd Nov 06:59PM:
Re: Caps an issue
The way most cable TV is packaged if Apple (or any other company) offers a competitive online offering it would likely be cheaper for customers to simply get two HSD packages from Comcast. ~$45/month for data, ~$45/month for a second modem with its own 250GB cap. Eventually Comcast (and others) will simply scale up the caps with tiered service. $45/month gets you 250GB, $85/month gets you 500GB. That's the future.
reply
IPPlanMan @ 2nd Nov 07:05PM:
Re: Caps an issue
Well... that may be the future.... but the "present" is to keep that from happening. Comcast doesn't want to have you watch anything but its onDemand or Premium channels.
reply
openbox9 @ 2nd Nov 07:26PM:
Re: How many
You might want to read around a few aTV and media center forums. Quite a bit has been accomplished with the aTV. There's a particularly interesting thread over at the XBMC forums about swapping out the mini PCIe wireless card with a Broadcom hardware decoding card to eventually decode 1080p blueray rips.
reply
openbox9 @ 2nd Nov 07:29PM:
Re: Bring it on.
Possibly. It definitely eases the interface to the living room TV for the layperson.
reply
iansltx @ 2nd Nov 07:51PM:
Re: Caps an issue
They aren't going to increase the price of biz-class internet. There tends to be enough competition to keep that from happening.
reply
Z80 @ 2nd Nov 07:52PM:
Re: And the caps axe will kill it before it begins
Aside from some genuinely congested areas, yes. There is no justification for across the board one size fits every street caps and traffic shaping. And when an ISP (Bell Canada) was forced to prove their case to regulators it was shown they were lying about capacity problems.
reply
jimbo2150 @ 2nd Nov 08:00PM:
Two issues...
I see two problems with this:
1.) $30 for what? A few channels that you may not even watch (like those ridiculousness mobile-TV subscriptions)? Compared to the 30-40 you pay for cable with 100+ channels? Will the channels be HD? Too many unknown variables here.
2.) I am planning on not purchasing cable when I get an apartment soon. Even though I'll have the money, I only watch maybe 5-10 channels about 5-10 hours a week. So I'm paying $30+ a month for 24-hours of 100+ channels, 90% of which is reruns and shows I don't watch, and sports channels which cost so much they should be "Premium" channels instead of making me pay for someone else to get sports at a lower rate? No thanks. When cable and media companies stops bit**ing about how a-la-carte will kill the industry and actually offer me something I like, then I will buy.
I give them this -- at least it's online. I would like to have a TV service that was online, but that's only one demand.
--
- "Techie" Jim
reply
nixen @ 2nd Nov 08:03PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
said by karlmarx :
BUT, I got a samsung 52" DNLA enabled TV, so I don't need any 3rd party device to stream locally. I would HIGHLY recommend your next TV has DNLA built in, that way you can just plug it into your network, configure the IP of the server, and stream your shows right from your computer (I have a windows 7 machine that acts as a DNLA server too, so it streams all my media right to my tv).
Meh. I have all my content sources going directly through my A/V head. Audio goes directly to my amp and video goes out to the TV. Everything hooked up via HDMI or optical cable to the A/V head. Don't really feel like having to reconfigure things so that audio and video transit from my TV to my A/V head.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell
reply
IPPlanMan @ 2nd Nov 09:12PM:
Re: And the caps axe will kill it before it begins
Comcast needs to do the same thing...
If it can sell "Business" internet with the extra bells and whistles like Microsoft Mail/Domain Services/Business Level Support, not to mention 10x the cap for 20-40 dollars more than the "Residential" tier, something is fishy here.
reply
IPPlanMan @ 2nd Nov 09:13PM:
Re: Caps an issue
said by iansltx :
They aren't going to increase the price of biz-class internet. There tends to be enough competition to keep that from happening.
Really? From what?
reply
the cerberus @ 2nd Nov 10:01PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
really, because sharing a vhs copy or dvd of any of your movies at home and sending it to all your friends isnt legal? i guess it depends on your country. in canada, sharing with your friends and family is legal if you own the original copy. the format shouldnt matter. it seems like fair use so long as hes not publicly selling access to his vpn.
reply
bender @ 2nd Nov 10:12PM:
Re: How many
said by openbox9 :
You might want to read around a few aTV and media center forums. Quite a bit has been accomplished with the aTV. There's a particularly interesting thread over at the XBMC forums about swapping out the mini PCIe wireless card with a Broadcom hardware decoding card to eventually decode 1080p blueray rips.
mmm. thats kinda sexy
reply
bender @ 2nd Nov 10:14PM:
Re: And the caps axe will kill it before it begins
especially if the only difference is in what it says on paper.
reply
IPPlanMan @ 2nd Nov 11:38PM:
Re: If Apple Would Hand Out Bandwidth
National Broadband Plan
»www.broadband.gov/
and as for your situation: »www.broadband.gov/rural_areas.html
reply
iansltx @ 2nd Nov 11:41PM:
Re: Caps an issue
If DSL gets really, really cheap in comparison with cable, businesses will leave for DSL.
reply
Z80 @ 3rd Nov 12:43AM:
Re: And the caps axe will kill it before it begins
Most small businesses which are the bulk of accounts Comcast Biz caters too don't host (which is why they offer domain hosting, maybe exchange hosting and other stuff) and use it for email, card processing and other light activities; a competitor to business xDSL. They are law firms, dentist offices, restaurants, store fronts, light manufacturers, etc. In general small business doesn't generate a lot of traffic and virtually none after hours. Even those that do host, it's not like they're generating huge traffic. Obviously there are exceptions including businesses who may perform online backups with a 3rd party service.
Most small businesses are amazingly small. Compare that with a residential user who fires of utorrent and never closes it or beats Giganews like it owes it money.
That $40 goes a long way in providing service. Those business customers end up using less service than a residential user while paying nearly 2X the price. And I would assume a lot are bundling phone services for which Comcast isn't cheap.
reply
fiberguy @ 3rd Nov 04:23AM:
Re: Boo Hooo cable co's
When was cable TV ever "commercial free" other than premium channels... All of the major cable networks have always had commercials.. Those premiums always cost far more becuase it is consumer supported.
reply
noname10 @ 3rd Nov 04:47AM:
Re: How many
said by jsz0 :said by baineschile :
I think they underestimeate the infastructe and functionality they will need for a project like this.
Apple already has the infrastructure. iTunes Store is the largest commercial online content distributor. Apple partners with two of the biggest CDNs (Akamai & Limelight) to deliver content. I imagine it would be easy for them to add more CDNs for future scalability. So Apple does have a lot of experience dealing with large distribution infrastructure. (also the iPhone App Store)
You are right. Apple uses both Akamai and Limelight for various things. I have no idea if they use one or both for Apple TV (I've never used it) but I can assure you that every single bit of data Apple sends in every category (from aple tv, itube, OS updates etc) combined would be a small fraction of Either Akamai's or Limelight's capacity, let alone both of them.
reply
tmc8080 @ 3rd Nov 05:03AM:
compete with FREE and others
unlike the audio/mp3 business.. video is at a transition point where broadband is not distributed evenly across the country for it to be a catalyst in terms of demand. companies have become so big that they seem to not care about expanding deployments and/or ramping up speeds in a big hurry anymore.
therefore, it will take at least 5 more years for emerging commitments to expand/build broadband to see a true maket where video distribution (commercially on a scale that Apple wants to actually make sense). the whole notion of caps/limits/tiers will need major reform to the benefit of the consumer for video services to take off as well. multi-tv homes will also demand some type of (home) centralized server to feed video to tv's and tv's themselves may end up with flash slots and hard drive combination to store video for localized on-demand programming, in addition to OTA channels.
then, Apple will have to cleverly market video to compete against all the FREE torrent/rss feed customized no-border wild internet provides and do a better job at it. at $30, the pricepoint overlaps satellite tv... but considering it would be some sort of on-demand programming for which one would not have to "RENT/BUY" set-top boxes, this means either your TV will have to support video input and your computer is a multi-core system which can handle streaming to a tv, and yet fully capable of doing regullar computing stuff simultaneously (quad-core, at least). video cards are already beginning to handle multi-out of different feeds to multi-monitors without skipping a beat so, the future does look bright for replacing the set-top in that repect.
not to be outdone, netflix and other companies such as google (youtube) are chomping at the bit to evolve their business models to give Apple a run for it's money, so no wonder they are floating the Video trial-baloon now, compared to next year. all of this points to the cable companies losing video subscribership the way voip converted the masses of POTS phone lines a decade+...
reply
BF69 @ 3rd Nov 05:13AM:
Re: Bring it on.
said by mystryfiostk :
Why it wouldn't be tied to apple tv is weird, though.
because most people like me would NEVER consider buying one but might be interested in the subscription. Now if Apple would have the same attitude about their OS it might actually get above 8%. Sorry some of us are just NEVR going to overpay for a computer just to get a supposedly superior OS. It may be supperior but until Apple actually offer it to PC users I'll never know. And Apple won't get my money. Their loss, MS gain.
reply
BF69 @ 3rd Nov 05:16AM:
Re: Boo Hooo cable co's
said by cdru :said by syslock :
Adapt with the times or die.
Remember that if/when per-byte billing gets implemented everywhere.
How is that adapting? That's going backwards.
reply
BF69 @ 3rd Nov 05:18AM:
Re: Boo Hooo cable co's
said by bender :
i vote for die. cable shoiuld have died when they stopped making it commercial free.
Cable was NEVER commerical free except for HBO, Showtime etc and they still are. I first got cbale when I was 13 in 1982 and sorry there was commericals on cable TV then. Cable hadn't been around too long before that.
reply
BF69 @ 3rd Nov 05:23AM:
Re: And the caps axe will kill it before it begins
said by Z80 :
ISPs, particularly those who are in video competition will simply cap this service out of competition. $30+ISP penalties will insure it is not competitive.
So Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Amazon and Netflix are just going to let ISPs get away with caps and cost them BILLIONS of dollars? I think not. Sorry but Bill Gates has enough money to pay off Charter's $21 billion debt and still have $30 billion left over. Now that's POWER. One share of Google stock is worth 27,000 shares of Charter stock. I'm being literal. When push comes to shove these guys will shove back and shove back HARD.
reply
Z80 @ 3rd Nov 08:13AM:
Re: And the caps axe will kill it before it begins
That would matter if Charter were more than an asterisk of market share.
They would be far better served spending those billions buying Congress. Congress can be bought for far less than any company.
reply
xrobertcmx @ 3rd Nov 08:40AM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
Basically, it isn't a dollar value. You are rebroadcasting those episodes outside your home for a larger audience. You are in a really interesting position because you are not broadcasting them to the public at large, but family members over a closed network which could be argued any number of ways. Try not to get caught, but if you do, let me know how it goes.
--
Retaking our country one election at a time.
reply
Jason Levine @ 3rd Nov 09:28AM:
Re: Caps an issue
And Time Warner is thinking of an even lower cap of 40GB (at their highest level) with overages. We've grown to love streaming movies/TV shows from Netflix on our Roku box, but even at standard definition (we don't have an HD TV and have no plans to buy one) and not counting other Internet activities (e-mail, twitter, blogging, browsing, etc), 40GB would be eaten up rapidly.
I believe Netflix streams at about 2200Kbps, so a 40GB cap would let us watch just over 42 hours of NetFlix streaming over the course of a month. This is only a little over an hour and a half per day! (Comcast's cap, by contrast, would allow for nearly 9 hours of Netflix watching per day.) In other words, Time Warner would kill Netflix streaming's usefulness via an extremely low cap and overage fees thus protecting their cable TV profits.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause
reply
Jason Levine @ 3rd Nov 09:43AM:
Re: Two issues...
If I understand it correctly, the $30 a month would let you stream any show in the iTunes library. You would be able to watch on your PC or via set top devices like AppleTV. (It will be interesting to me if they make deals with other set top providers like Roku.)
Currently, we pay $75 a month for cable TV (no premium channels). We are seriously looking into canceling cable completely, or at least switching from Time Warner Cable to DirecTV (and saving nearly $30 a month). I would definitely be interested in something like what Apple is proposing - especially if they made it work with Roku.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause
reply
Van @ 3rd Nov 09:53AM:
Big fan of Apples with an iPhone
and MacBookPro but I would pass on such a thing
I still prefer my TV for my shows and the DVR helps.
I enjoy Netflix for my views on my computer but even Netflix's cheap price (imo, cheap that is) still makes me wonder every month if I should be paying that.....so tripling that price (even for good lineups) probably wouldn't be within my price range.
reply
anon @ 3rd Nov 10:41AM:
cable and satel
internet companies usually are owned by satellite-cable tv providers
they just cap their internet connection to hell and kill apples service.
thats competition and capitalism at work.
reply
bender @ 3rd Nov 11:06AM:
Re: Boo Hooo cable co's
not when it first came out. circa 1950-1970
reply
mworks @ 3rd Nov 11:45AM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
You are part of what is wrong with the internet. You get content illegally and are happy doing it. If someone owns something and they tell you that you cannot view it unless you follow their guidelines then you do not have the right to say otherwise. It is not your right to view the content. You do not own the content.
This is why all the DRM crap is being forced on the rest of us.
reply
mworks @ 3rd Nov 11:48AM:
Re: Two issues...
If they offer a service where I can stream any itunes show for $30 a month I would cancel satellite. Right now I pay $73 for directv to watch just a few channels. I truly wish channels would just offer a online streaming option where I could go to stations like history channel and subscribe for the same content I get via satellite.
reply
j_on_fire @ 3rd Nov 12:18PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
Wow Karl that's a great set up. What do you do for sports? Do you have a network Schematic? So many questions!!!!
reply
AVonGauss @ 3rd Nov 01:23PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
I am not an expert on Canadian law, but I don't think it quite works that way. I believe what you are referring to is the levies regarding you making a personal copy for yourself. Not distribution, or uploading, etc.
reply
karlmarx @ 3rd Nov 01:42PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
Whoa there nelly. Someone tells me I cannot view it unless I follow their guidelines? That's bull, and you know it. If I PAY $20.00 for a DVD, I have EVERY RIGHT to view it in any manner, format, time, location, etc I want to. I believe you are one of those nutcases who believes that we only 'rent' the movie when we give them our money? That's wrong on so many levels, I can't even begin to count. For starters, the right of first sale CLEARLY states that when I BUY something from you, I have the RIGHT to resell it. Basically, that means when I buy it, I OWN it. If I OWN it, you have NO right to tell me what I can or cannot do with it. You're probably one of those right wing republican nut cases who thinks we should have camera's in the bedrooms so we don't engage in 'illegal' activities in there.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity!
reply
mworks @ 3rd Nov 03:41PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
Except you didn't pay for a DVD, you downloaded the content. Big difference. And it doesn't matter if it was over the air broadcast. If you download it, cut out the commercials and distribute it, then you have just stolen from the broadcaster. Who do you think pays for the shows ? Why is it so hard for people to understand that when someone who owns something be it music or a movie tells you I am willing to let you have a copy, but I don't want you to do any of the following, that you can't accept it ? Where is it written that you have the right to anything owned by anyone else ?
If I buy a DVD and they tell me before I buy it that I can't show it in a commercial setting then I have the choice to buy it or not buy it. Your attitude is one of , well I'll buy it and if I don't like the terms I'll do what I want anyway . As long as the owner of the material makes their terms clear before you pay anything then you don't have the right to do what you want.
Where I have a problem is when the owner changes the rules AFTER the sale. Everyone has a choice to use or not use something. Movies, software, music are not a right, if you don't like the terms, spend your money elsewhere.
I am an artist. If I do a painting and someone says "I'll just take a picture of it, I wouldn't buy it anyway" , that is stealing from me. If I did the painting with the concept of being paid for everytime someone got a copy, then anyone making copies of it without paying me is stealing from me even though they didn't take away a physical item or cost me an actual sale. I did the work and set the conditions, nobody is being forced to copy the work. They have a choice, what you are wanting is for intellectual property to be worthless because it isn't physical. That is wrong, people did the work so they could be paid, don't like it, don't watch it.
reply
IPPlanMan @ 3rd Nov 08:58PM:
Re: Umm, this already exists
DRM I can live with.... Low caps like these I cannot.
I know I'm not alone in saying this.
reply
FastiBook @ 4th Nov 12:58AM:
Streaming via....
Streaming to your iPhone etc, or load & watch to your iPhone, laptop, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, Desktop...
I really think if the content is there, it will work.
- A
--
LETS GO METS!
reply
FastiBook @ 4th Nov 01:00AM:
Re: cable and satel
Yea, and get keel hauled by the FCC & FTC for anti-competition.
- A
--
LETS GO METS!
reply
nevtxjustin @ 6th Nov 09:52AM:
Rebroadcasting free material not legal
You're incorrect when you make the leap from receiving it free to rebroadcasting it for general distribution is legal..
RIAA walks into a grocery that has their background music hooked up to an FM radio and is rebroadcasting the FM stations music (that the FM station already paid a licensing fee). Grocery gets a cease and desist letter.
Fast food restaurant rebroadcast satellite radio into their dining area. Its legal because the restaurant is paying a rebroadcasting fee the same way a night club pays a fee to play recorded music from a record.
reply
jimbo2150 @ 8th Nov 06:28PM:
Re: Two issues...
said by Jason Levine :
If I understand it correctly, the $30 a month would let you stream any show in the iTunes library.
Not sold. I looked up iTunes shows. I did not see anywhere that notifies of new episodes posted and most shows were 3, 4, 5, or more episodes behind what was already played. So $30 to continually browse the iTunes listings for old shows and wait, hoping they will update their shows with the latest episodes? No thanks.
I would consider it if they had episodes up to the latest one within a few days of it airing and had a way that the store would notify me of new episodes of X show added.
--
- "Techie" Jim
reply
jdigger @ 11th Nov 02:32PM:
Re: It is getting to the point....
you might be interested in MyHomeDVR.com
reply
Thank you for using lo-fi dslreports.com - report bugs
© 99-2009 silver matrix LLC