[opendtv] Re: Does Apple's Tim Cook Want an Apple Television?

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:53:33 -0500

At 7:30 PM -0600 12/10/12, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Which is an orthogonal argument. Apple, at best, wanted to get in bed with the MVPDs, to get to the content. That's hardly innovative. The innovation the awe-struck faithful are looking for, from an Apple TV, has to do with technology. Something that any TV maker can do independently, using existing building blocks, not becoming slave to any one solution.

You are falling prey to the analysts.

Apple has never indicated any interest in working with the MVPDs - at least publicly. There are MANY theories out there about what Apple wants to do. But they are all just theories until Apple lets the public know what was behind the Steve Jobs comment that Apple had "cracked the code."

And as I keep telling you, the technology is already there for the most part. For those who live in the Apple ecosystem, one need invest only $99 to turn any HDMI capable TV into a "smart TV" that works with a Mac, and iPhone, an iPod Touch, or an iPad. The one thing we don know, is that Apple is likely to bring more features to the little black hockey puck, allowing more complex capabilities for multi-person activities when sitting in front of the big screen, using various mobile devices for the human interface.

 Thank you for making my point. This is not discovery. It is
 looking under every haystack for something you might want.

Not at all. It is going directly to the source when you know the source, and using the search engine when you want to discover.

Exactly as I said. If you know the source it is not discovery...just search.

 And this re-enforces the perception that a program producer must sell
 out to the congloms if they want to reach the mass TV audience.

Again, an orthogonal discussion, and untrue to boot. With the vast choice available over the Internet, any producer will have to look for some way of getting good visibility. Whether that's a conglom, or whether that's an OTT site like Hulu, which allows people to browse through different genres. We've been over this countless times. I sometimes browse through movies at Hulu, and pick one that looks interesting, without having had a clue beforehand what even to "search" for. Aside from, say, "drama."

Again, you are confirming what I said. If they sell their content to the congloms they perpetuate the current oligopoly. To get on Hulu you must first sell out to the congloms.

As for searching Hulu, or Netflix, you are just "discovering" what is available in their walled garden.

Bottom line, an independent program producer can either go it alone, or sell out to the congloms.

So where do you search - and how - to discover these rogue independent producers who choose not to enrich the congloms?

Just for kicks, I typed "drama movies online" in Webcrawler, and came up with pages and pages of results. Portals like this one:


PLENTY of discovery, Craig. Discovery for those who don't even know what specifically they are after. If you do know what you're after, it's that much easier. For example, I've bookmarked a whole slew of YouTube videos of songs I like, even odd ones, like Lolita's Seeman. (Look it up. Several different versions of it, even one in English by Petula Clark.)

Yup. This is a start.

Just keep in mind, that only a tiny fraction of TVs have ANY kind of search capability. The MVPDs still control most of the audience, which is exactly why Cook talked about the technology being decades out of date.

 > Case in point: Google TV. They provided a framework for CE manufacturers
 to integrate the stuff you want. It went NOWHERE because they did not
 solve the real problems. Discovery and Human Interface

I think it went nowhere because the content owners didn't want some third party creating an unnecessary monopoly. So they blocked their content from this would-be monopolist, as they did from Apple. The good news is, the content owners only do this for companies that try to get too greedy. They don't want to block content from EVERYONE. So the CE companies should learn to do their own thing.

As you say, these are orthogonal arguments.

Google TV went nowhere, first and foremost,  because the technology sucked.

Yes, the congloms quickly plugged the new holes in the dike, but this is exactly why smart TVs are going nowhere. If you want access to their stuff (99% of what everyone watches) you need to subscribe to an MVPD bundle. Sooner or later, they will block PCs connected to TVs; the only reason they have not done so to date is that this is such a tiny leak, and the leakage rate is slowing as PCs decline in importance relative the the hot new mobile devices.

 Now Bert suddenly changes his position:

Only for those with a reading comprehension problem.

I said, (1) you don't need Apple or Google, or any other single "prophet," to solve something that has already been solved.

If the problem is solved, who is buying the solution?

And (2), independent of this, I disagree with your point that the congloms are charging consumers ever more for their stuff, and only making it available through MVPDs.

Facts are facts. and you are wrong.

That second point has nothing to do with the technology. It simply disagrees with your confused complaints. I can get SOME content FOTI that previously was only available via MVPDs. QED.

Yup. when most of the value has been wrung out of it.

People keep paying those monthly MVPD bills because they cannot, or do not, want to wait. Sports is the primary driver today, as the article I posted this morning verifies...


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.

Other related posts: