Monty Solomon posted: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/18/business/media/apples-move-into-tv-relies-on-cooperation-with-industry-leaders.html Same-o same-o. My take on this article: When Apple invented the iPhone, they didn't have a cell network of their own. Ideally, they would have simply created a generic smartphone that could run on any cell network, without need for collusion. But they couldn't, the way cellcos operate. Unfortunately, in the US, that's how this still works for wireless telephony (although no longer for wired telephony - anyone can make telephones for the wired telcos). Apple chose to go this same route for AppleTV, colluding with the MVPDs. Google and Intel are instead trying to go directly to the source, the content owners, same as Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, essentially re-creating an MVPD online. Of course, AppleTV can also access other pay-TV sites like Netflix and Hulu, but then again, how is that remotely interesting? Anyone can. And "anyone" can also access any number of online sites that AppleTV cannot. Do the content owners care whether only established MVPDs are able to distribute the owner's content? I don't see why they should. The content owners want so much for their content, depending on type of content, and it makes no sense for them to insist only on using established MVPDs. In spite of Craig's circular arguments, if the owner of the content can get $x per individual access for the content, it should not matter whether that $x comes from an existing MVPD or from a new online site. Even for sports. And this time, I said $x per *individual access*, rather than per subscriber, because from the owner's point of view, the same applies to ad-supported material. They want their money, that's all. Now here's something that shows how absurd the state of television is. Quoting from the bottom of the article: "Last month, in a little-noticed move, the company [Apple] approved an app for Sky News, the British-based cable news channel. Sky could already be streamed live free on the Web, but by creating an app for Apple TV, the channel gained access to the television sets in 13 million homes without the need for complex negotiations with cable companies." Why should anyone need "complex negotiations with cable companies" to get FOTI content on TV sets? Why would anyone need Apple for that generic task? The only thing anyone needs is for CE companies to make sensible connected TV products. Without thinking they need to collude with anyone, to this end. Bert ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.