back to article SECRET Apple-Comcast CONFAB BLAB: Movies streamed to TV? – report

Apple is reportedly in discussions that would see it create “... a streaming-television service that would use an Apple set-top box and get special treatment on Comcast's cables to ensure it bypasses congestion on the Web,” according to The Wall Street Journal. The report says discussions are “still in early stages and many …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge

No, there is no congestion on the Web...

Even if you assume that by "Web" they mean the Internet, there is no congestion under normal circumstances. The backbone is easy to upgrade, and you need to exchange your lasers regularly anyhow.

The place where there are congestions is the access network of cable companies. The problem simply is that "broadband cable" is a passive distribution network, it never was meant for individual communications. Those networks are a bit cheaper to roll out, but very expensive to update. The shared part of the network is distributed over many buildings.

2
1

iRevisionism?

"Apple's early iPhone deals with AT&T worked ...because the iPhone was so far ahead of its early competitors"

Only true if you ignore the other devices that could do so much more than the iphone.

12
8
Silver badge

Re: iRevisionism?

You may be talking of something different. While certainly there were other phones which had features which the iPhone lacked, the success of the iPhone was largely due to having a UI that was heads and shoulders above the competition. And yes, Apple managed to wrestle exceptional concessions from AT&T just because they wanted the exclusivity on the iPhone; e.g no carrier logo on the phone, no carrier software in the phone.

8
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: iRevisionism?

We're talking about the iPhone 1 here. The UI wasn't great, the phone wasn't great. There were some really good usability improvements, but it was also frustratingly poor at some things.

It's easy to think the original iPhone was the similar to the iPhone 3G, but it wasn't it couldn't even run third party downloadable apps.

The reason it was so sought after was because it was "Apple". Apple had had massive success with their iPod line and also they were seen as being 'cool' from this and their iMacs which made great iCandy for any internet cafe.

It was the iHype that got the At&T exclusive, not the phone itself as that wasn't much more than a prototype when the deal was discussed.

5
5
Silver badge

Re: iRevisionism?

>The reason it was so sought after was because it was "Apple"

Or maybe because it resembled the phones most people use today? The first iPhone had the basics (multi-touch screen, proximity sensor so you don't end a call with your cheek, useful information such as travel times accessed with a single tap of an app instead of faffing with a browser) that we see in the vast majority of phones today. Other companies had the elements, but didn't play their hand as quickly (Nokia, especially).

True, it didn't have 3G like some other handsets did, but mobile data was very expensive at the time anyway- and it wasn't required to check emails or get travel information. In the UK Apple negotiated with Orange, and used their leverage to get an 'unlimited data*' tariff.

It wasn't perfect, but at least it could be used with standard 3.5mm headphones, unlike a lot of phones at the time (looking at you, Samsung, Nokia, Sony-Ericsson).

5
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: iRevisionism?

So if the iPhone had something first it makes it somehow revolutionary but if another phone had something first, it is run-of-the mill? The iPhone had a few things first, but many phones before and after it had other things first. Some things that have now become standard on phones also (even though the iPhone didn't have it).

The iPhone 1 didn't have an app that showed travel times with a single tap. It didn't even have GPS! (Nokia's N95 did!).

Then it's shortcomings - it didn't have 3G, but that was because 3G was so expensive (so Apple decided that their users shouldn't be forced to pay such high prices?)

The N95 also had a 5MP camera (iPhone 2MP). N95 had a microSD slot, a replaceable battery, MMS, Instant Messaging, Video Calling.

The iPhone couldn't even record video, and unlike the Nokia 7650 released in 2002 you couldn't put an app on it to record video.

An N95 could do VoIP, play video through a TV, had Bluetooth stereo.

There were phones with capacitive screens and phones with full face touch displays.

Hence, it's easy to look back through the view that the iPhone first gen was revolutionary based upon features that were actually only available much later on in an iPhone.

and..plenty of phones could take normal earphones by then.

2
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: iRevisionism?

The N95 also had a 5MP camera (iPhone 2MP). N95 had a microSD slot, a replaceable battery, MMS, Instant Messaging, Video Calling.

Ah yes the N95 and who says it was only post Windows Phone when Nokia had lost the plot? I had the misfortune to have an N95 and due to stupid carrier branding it was impossible to upgrade the software and the one it came with was about as stable as Susan Boyle standing on a three legged table. The first iPhone may not have been technically as superior but it was usable

1
0
Silver badge

There is a reason "It's Comtastic!" is an explicitive.

http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/548182

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Then there's the question of whether Apple would be content to deal with just one carrier, as while Comcast (thanks in part to its merger with Time ) would give it a mighty footprint in the USA it would not reach all homes.

There are rumours abound Apple are involved with Motive Television (http://www.motivetelevision.co.uk/), who can stream Digital TV over standard airwaves without changes to existing infrastructure. All you need is a dongle for a client device, and there you go - anywhere that can get normal TV will be able to use the service; including tablets.

0
0
Bronze badge

Old Rupes has very little foothold in the cable market in the UK, with the dominance of Sky being predominantly based in the Satellite TV market (which doesn't seem a very good fit for Apple TV). Sky are starting to gain ground with fibre optic broadband but still lag behind Virgin Media (who rule the cable roost and have just started to offer Netflix via their TiVo boxes) and BT with their patchy Infinity service.

0
3
Bronze badge

"because the iPhone was so far ahead of its early competitors"

Are you fucking kidding me? Were you even there? Do you know anything at all?

Sack this guy.

8
7
Anonymous Coward

Re: "because the iPhone was so far ahead of its early competitors"

Are you one of those people who think that the success of the iPhone was due to "Apple marketing lies" and "stupid consumers"?

4
6
Silver badge

Re: "because the iPhone was so far ahead of its early competitors"

>Are you fucking kidding me? Were you even there? Do you know anything at all?

Do you care to expand on that, or are you just being rude?

What's your objection to the statement? That the iPhone didn't have 3G? Or because it didn't support 3rd party applications, a la Symbian?

The phrase "the iPhone was so far ahead of its early competitors" is ambiguous, but arguably the first iPhone was closer to what most smartphones are today than its rivals at the time. If you take the phrase as meaning that the iPhone was ahead of its competitors in market awareness or in profit margin, again, it is probably true.

If you want your post to be taken seriously, you should at least address those points.

3
2
Silver badge
Linux

Re: "because the iPhone was so far ahead of its early competitors"

> Are you one of those people who think that the success of the iPhone was due to "Apple marketing lies" and "stupid consumers"?

Based on the iPod and it's competitors, that's not such a big stretch really.

Apple has it's own perfect example of how the better product doesn't necessarily win the market.

0
1
Silver badge

I have no issue with Apple penning a deal for movies.

I do have an issue with Apple getting an EXCLUSIVE deal for movies. Competition is necessary to keep corporate streaming prices down.

1
0

This is in Apple's best interests.

Network Neutrality is dead in the 'ole US of A and will not be missed. ISPs are now billing content providers to route their traffic.

You pay Comcast for 'general' bandwidth, then you pay Apple for the data you want, then Apple pays Comcast so it can deliver you the data. This way it ensures there can be no new players entrant into video streaming services unless they've already got a fat wallet.

1
1

Re: This is in Apple's best interests.

Two words: monopoly rents. De jure, de facto, makes no de fference.

1
0
This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums