5 ms·

There is one crucial aspect of the TV experience this argument leaves out. Content - An Apple television would present some cool options for new apps and games

There is one crucial aspect of the TV experience this argument leaves out. Content - An Apple television would present some cool options for new apps and games, but the lean back experience would be no different than with a current TV. People want their Madmen, football, Nascar, Walking Dead, etc. and you will need to buy that through cable companies (for now). If Apple makes a TV it will look awesome and have some neat tricks, but it will be a "Dumb Screen" for whatever comes through the set top box. That seems like a losing solution for Apple. I think a more likely scenario is that Apple buys a Cable provider like Comcast and replaces the horrible set top box with an Apple version. Why? Apple's huge cash position - Apple has more than $50B in free cash and are adding ~$10B a quarter. They have made repeated statements about keeping that money available for one or more major strategic investments. They could conceivably have enough money to buy Comcast by the end of this year. Why this works: - Fits their vertically integrated model perfectly. Now Apple will own the customer experience from end to end. - Creates a wedge that will force other carriers to offer an Apple set top box. - Forces all the content providers to play ball with Apple. If Apple owns the pipes the content co's will lose a lot of negotiating power. - It is a great high margin business, well suited to the Tim Cook era where device innovation might be slower. - It is a hedge against Net Neutrality. If the cable co's get their way it could negatively impact the Apple UX, especially for iPad. In this scenario Apple can take on a high margin business with a host of barriers to entry and milk it while they reimagine what the TV experience should be for the next 20 years. I have no doubt that we will see a beautiful aluminum TV made by Apple at some point, but if they don't figure out the infrastructure foundation first it will not work.

melvinram 16y ago
I like it but I'm not sure it's likely. They are very different cultures. With that said, if it did happen, maybe I'll like Comcast/Applecast again.
jonursenbach 16y ago
Apple might have enough money to buy Comcast, but would that ever pass regulation?
- 2arrs2ells 16y ago
  They don't really have enough money - Comcast has a market cap of $60 BN. Jobs and Cook have been incredibly fiscally conservative - there's absolutely no way they'd try to acquire a company this large. If they were going to do this, I think the only way would be to buy a 10-20% stake in Comcast, get a board seat or two, and make it a "strategic partnership." (That said, I don't think there's any way Apple wants to get anywhere near Comcast's awful customer service reputation.)
  - Samuel_Michon 16y ago
    I doubt Apple would spend it all in one place, but it has more than $60 billion lying around just in cash reserves alone. Also, Apple has a market cap of $300 billion, that dwarfes Comcast's $60 billion. http://www.asymco.com/2011/01/19/20-billionyr-apples-cash-growth-acceleration-suggests-100-billion-next-year/ http://www.asymco.com/2011/01/19/20-billionyr-apples-cash-gr...
  - thwarted 16y ago
    (That said, I don't think there's any way Apple wants to get anywhere near Comcast's awful customer service reputation.) It actually might not be that bad for Apple. There's no place to go but up in terms of Comcast's customer service, and Apple could always present it like it is a serious uphill battle (which it is), so if they don't kick its ass out of the gate, it'll just be one of those things Apple tried but couldn't do. Of course they'd still be left with this huge service albatross if it doesn't work out, and that's where the risk is.
  - panacea 16y ago
    "That said, I don't think there's any way Apple wants to get anywhere near Comcast's awful customer service reputation." Whilst I agree with you, it didn't stop them from partnering with AT&T. So there's that data point.
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  "would that ever pass regulation?" AOL bought Time Warner. Google bought DoubleClick and Admob. Adobe bought Macromedia. Oracle bought Sun. AT&T bought Cingular. Anti-competitive acquisitions happen all the time.
jws 16y ago
…but the lean back experience would be no different than with a current TV. There is plenty of room to improve my lean back TV experience. • When I turn it on, why does it take 10 seconds for my LCD TV to show me a picture? Why does it take 3 seconds just to decide I actually told it to turn on and make a beep? Close your laptop, open it, how long did the LCD take to come on? • When the children stop watching, why does it sit there burning 300 watts all night long displaying a blank screen. (Why the children can not be made to understand the difference between turning off the TV and stopping the video is a different question. I'll work on that when they get the difference between a computer and a monitor.) • Why am I seeing a movie letter boxed in both dimensions for an image that is smaller on my 42" LCD than it was on the 26" Trinitron I replaced? (Why are none of the zoom modes right to keep the aspect ratio and make it fit without losing chunks? Isn't there a computer in there with a digital frame buffer that should notice these things and take care of them?) • In my letter boxed movie, why are the subtitles drawn on top of the action instead of the black areas? • Why is my TV unable to remember the volume I use on the U-verse, the Apple TV, broadcast, and the video game? Changing inputs shouldn't send the children running for cover. (Three of those could go away into a good tele vision delivery device.) • Why does it take my TV many seconds to sync when I change from one HDMI input to another? Sometimes it fails completely on the U-verse and I have to go around again. • Go around again? I have dozens of buttons on my remote. I want "on/off", "volume", "input select", (and channels for when I watch broadcast). I don't get input select though, just "next in cycle", which I can't just mash 4 times to go around because it has to sync and show me what is on the inputs I don't want to watch before I can move forward again. • Infrared remotes? Really? Is that so I have to display my equipment prominently for my friends to see? • If I tried to describe what an abomination U-verse's DVR experience is, my head would explode. Somewhere they did minimize software development costs, well done AT&T. So Apple, do an iPod. Take an eraser to the "minimum required bullet list" for televisions and give me one that only does what I want. I don't care if it has less space than a nomad, just don't make me be its servant.
- jswanson 16y ago
  I think you have a remarkably bad TV.
brudgers 16y ago
Suppose Apple buys Comcast, then what? They would have no position right next door in Mexico and Canada (not to mention Asia, Europe, South America, and the Down Under). If Apple seeks content, the target is Disney - hands down the only halo brand in content, and it provides a sports network and deep market penetration worldwide.
- mdonahoe 16y ago
  Given Steve Jobs' seat on the Disney board, I might expect a partnership before a buyout.
  - pdaviesa 16y ago
    Jobs is also the largest Disney shareholder. Not sure if he controls a majority of voting rights though.
    - culturestate 16y ago
      IIRC he's the largest individual shareholder, not the largest overall shareholder.
- replicatorblog 16y ago
  I don't think they want content. They want distribution and pipes. Owning content is not strategic for Apple and they've seen AOL/Sony die this way before them. I think they want to own the platform that delivers the content to users.
cosmicray 16y ago
> They could conceivably have enough money to buy Comcast by the end of this year. assuming that Apple wanted to be in that type of business, they could achieve a similar end by buying Frontier/Echostar/DISH. In addition to the satellite assets, they get Frontier's LTE licenses (which cover a very large part, but not all, of CONUS).
jsz0 16y ago
Seems very unlikely to me. Why would Apple want to get involved in that mess? Anyone who buys a big cable TV company at this point is buying a ticking -- very obsolete, time bomb. Apple would have no trouble finding partners especially with telco-video providers like.... AT&T and Verizon. AT&T is probably a better fit since they are aggressively deploying U-Verse reusing lots of old infrastructure faster than Verizon is building out FIOS with new infrastructure. In either case you have a service that is already IP based and simply needs an Ethernet connection unlike cable with its RF tuners, burst modulators, CableLabs certifications, vast amounts of federal/state/municipal regulation, deeply proprietary backend systems, etc. Just like the iPhone it would be a game changer. Give AT&T a few years of exclusivity on U-Verse and the cable operators will be begging for an Apple set top to replace their (mostly) vintage mid-90s Motorola/Cisco set tops. By this point they will already have made the jump to IP which will massively simplify the work Apple needs to do to support cable. The FCC has been looking at IP gateways as a replacement for CableCARD which plays right into this strategy. Eventually Apple could sell one IP set top that works with every provider. It would also not preclude Apple from keeping the current carrier-independent Apple TV product around with reduced functionality. This strikes the right balance between hardcore TV watchers who demand 800 channels and casual TV watchers who are happy to pay a couple of bucks per episode.
ippisl 16y ago
When people watch tv series and sports , they just basically need a dumb screen and cable content. But it's a whole different story with regards to movies. a great movie discovery like jinni.com + access to a large niche mainstream + niche movie library can make a huge difference in the viewing experience.

melvinram 16y ago

I like it but I'm not sure it's likely. They are very different cultures. With that said, if it did happen, maybe I'll like Comcast/Applecast again.

jonursenbach 16y ago

Apple might have enough money to buy Comcast, but would that ever pass regulation?

2arrs2ells 16y ago
They don't really have enough money - Comcast has a market cap of $60 BN. Jobs and Cook have been incredibly fiscally conservative - there's absolutely no way they'd try to acquire a company this large. If they were going to do this, I think the only way would be to buy a 10-20% stake in Comcast, get a board seat or two, and make it a "strategic partnership." (That said, I don't think there's any way Apple wants to get anywhere near Comcast's awful customer service reputation.)
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  I doubt Apple would spend it all in one place, but it has more than $60 billion lying around just in cash reserves alone. Also, Apple has a market cap of $300 billion, that dwarfes Comcast's $60 billion. http://www.asymco.com/2011/01/19/20-billionyr-apples-cash-growth-acceleration-suggests-100-billion-next-year/ http://www.asymco.com/2011/01/19/20-billionyr-apples-cash-gr...
- thwarted 16y ago
  (That said, I don't think there's any way Apple wants to get anywhere near Comcast's awful customer service reputation.) It actually might not be that bad for Apple. There's no place to go but up in terms of Comcast's customer service, and Apple could always present it like it is a serious uphill battle (which it is), so if they don't kick its ass out of the gate, it'll just be one of those things Apple tried but couldn't do. Of course they'd still be left with this huge service albatross if it doesn't work out, and that's where the risk is.
- panacea 16y ago
  "That said, I don't think there's any way Apple wants to get anywhere near Comcast's awful customer service reputation." Whilst I agree with you, it didn't stop them from partnering with AT&T. So there's that data point.
Samuel_Michon 16y ago
"would that ever pass regulation?" AOL bought Time Warner. Google bought DoubleClick and Admob. Adobe bought Macromedia. Oracle bought Sun. AT&T bought Cingular. Anti-competitive acquisitions happen all the time.

jws 16y ago

…but the lean back experience would be no different than with a current TV. There is plenty of room to improve my lean back TV experience. • When I turn it on, why does it take 10 seconds for my LCD TV to show me a picture? Why does it take 3 seconds just to decide I actually told it to turn on and make a beep? Close your laptop, open it, how long did the LCD take to come on? • When the children stop watching, why does it sit there burning 300 watts all night long displaying a blank screen. (Why the children can not be made to understand the difference between turning off the TV and stopping the video is a different question. I'll work on that when they get the difference between a computer and a monitor.) • Why am I seeing a movie letter boxed in both dimensions for an image that is smaller on my 42" LCD than it was on the 26" Trinitron I replaced? (Why are none of the zoom modes right to keep the aspect ratio and make it fit without losing chunks? Isn't there a computer in there with a digital frame buffer that should notice these things and take care of them?) • In my letter boxed movie, why are the subtitles drawn on top of the action instead of the black areas? • Why is my TV unable to remember the volume I use on the U-verse, the Apple TV, broadcast, and the video game? Changing inputs shouldn't send the children running for cover. (Three of those could go away into a good tele vision delivery device.) • Why does it take my TV many seconds to sync when I change from one HDMI input to another? Sometimes it fails completely on the U-verse and I have to go around again. • Go around again? I have dozens of buttons on my remote. I want "on/off", "volume", "input select", (and channels for when I watch broadcast). I don't get input select though, just "next in cycle", which I can't just mash 4 times to go around because it has to sync and show me what is on the inputs I don't want to watch before I can move forward again. • Infrared remotes? Really? Is that so I have to display my equipment prominently for my friends to see? • If I tried to describe what an abomination U-verse's DVR experience is, my head would explode. Somewhere they did minimize software development costs, well done AT&T. So Apple, do an iPod. Take an eraser to the "minimum required bullet list" for televisions and give me one that only does what I want. I don't care if it has less space than a nomad, just don't make me be its servant.

jswanson 16y ago
I think you have a remarkably bad TV.

brudgers 16y ago

Suppose Apple buys Comcast, then what? They would have no position right next door in Mexico and Canada (not to mention Asia, Europe, South America, and the Down Under). If Apple seeks content, the target is Disney - hands down the only halo brand in content, and it provides a sports network and deep market penetration worldwide.

mdonahoe 16y ago
Given Steve Jobs' seat on the Disney board, I might expect a partnership before a buyout.
- pdaviesa 16y ago
  Jobs is also the largest Disney shareholder. Not sure if he controls a majority of voting rights though.
  - culturestate 16y ago
    IIRC he's the largest individual shareholder, not the largest overall shareholder.
replicatorblog 16y ago
I don't think they want content. They want distribution and pipes. Owning content is not strategic for Apple and they've seen AOL/Sony die this way before them. I think they want to own the platform that delivers the content to users.

cosmicray 16y ago

> They could conceivably have enough money to buy Comcast by the end of this year. assuming that Apple wanted to be in that type of business, they could achieve a similar end by buying Frontier/Echostar/DISH. In addition to the satellite assets, they get Frontier's LTE licenses (which cover a very large part, but not all, of CONUS).

jsz0 16y ago

Seems very unlikely to me. Why would Apple want to get involved in that mess? Anyone who buys a big cable TV company at this point is buying a ticking -- very obsolete, time bomb. Apple would have no trouble finding partners especially with telco-video providers like.... AT&T and Verizon. AT&T is probably a better fit since they are aggressively deploying U-Verse reusing lots of old infrastructure faster than Verizon is building out FIOS with new infrastructure. In either case you have a service that is already IP based and simply needs an Ethernet connection unlike cable with its RF tuners, burst modulators, CableLabs certifications, vast amounts of federal/state/municipal regulation, deeply proprietary backend systems, etc. Just like the iPhone it would be a game changer. Give AT&T a few years of exclusivity on U-Verse and the cable operators will be begging for an Apple set top to replace their (mostly) vintage mid-90s Motorola/Cisco set tops. By this point they will already have made the jump to IP which will massively simplify the work Apple needs to do to support cable. The FCC has been looking at IP gateways as a replacement for CableCARD which plays right into this strategy. Eventually Apple could sell one IP set top that works with every provider. It would also not preclude Apple from keeping the current carrier-independent Apple TV product around with reduced functionality. This strikes the right balance between hardcore TV watchers who demand 800 channels and casual TV watchers who are happy to pay a couple of bucks per episode.

ippisl 16y ago

When people watch tv series and sports , they just basically need a dumb screen and cable content. But it's a whole different story with regards to movies. a great movie discovery like jinni.com + access to a large niche mainstream + niche movie library can make a huge difference in the viewing experience.