PS – HiDef TV is also largely a US only (and some of Asia?) phenomenon – the rest of us can only dream of upgrading from PAL/SECAM in the near term!

With the whole digital hub idea, what I envision (if Apple enters this particular market) is a “place” where Joe Somebody can create a home video and share it with the world on Apple’s television network so that anyone around the world could potentially watch it if they own the Apple TiVo. A DIY television network if you will, supplanting the network-supported dribble with genuine content created by the masses for the masses. This would give the independent writers and filmmakers a much greater audience with which to test their ideas.

Of course, I’m an idealist, and I keep hoping that Hollywood and the major networks wouldn’t feel threatened by such an idea, but would instead encourage it as a marketplace for new ideas to blossom that can then (if an idea proves successful) be inculcated into the more mainstream media. (Like if a series on AppleTV were wildly successful in its subscription rate, then one of the networks makes a bid to the creator for the rights to display the show on their network – DIY syndication. :)

Since I, like ‘The Steve’, despise TV as a whole I’ll offer my reasons why. (I must say that I have digital cable from Time Warner and the HiDef DVR that they provide. This costs about $80 a month.)

- too many commercials… especially on the major networks
- not enough good content
- scheduling is a nightmare
- too many useless channels offered
- not enough capacity in the DVR to truly use it as desired

So why do I pay when I can’t stand the content? Mainly because there are a few channels that my kids like (Noggin, Discovery Kids, etc.) and I like HBO, and some sporting events you can’t get on the major networks.

This brings me to my point. I would gladly pay the same $80 a month to have unfettered, on demand access to the TV content I use now; without the need for the other channels, the DVR, and the rest of the bloat that comes with it.

Since most TV content is syndicated anyway, why couldn’t a company (like Apple) create an on-demand service that allows the consumer to pay (read: subscribe) for content on a per show basis? This whay I can buy access to those kids shows on Noggin, and the Formula 1 racing, HBO shows, and a select few others by the title not the episode.

This way I can pay a nominal fee (maybe $3/month) for on-demand access to each show. Or perhaps a higher fee for an entire channel (like I pay for HBO now).

Licensing the syndicated show is not difficult, look at all the channels showing the same stuff. It’s more a matter of demand than supply. Would people other than me but into this method? And this raises another important issue. If people are willing to pay for TV on a per-show (not per-episode) basis, this would cause the best or most popular shows to rise to the top and all the crappy ones to fade away Hooray!!

Apple could easily license syndicated shows and provide content this way using any of the distribution methods mentioned above, and all via a much sexier set-top box than anyone else could deliver. Then th emajor issue is more about the newest shows not yet in syndication (i.e. major network programming), but Cupertino scored deals with the major music labels to distrubute the hottest new tunes. So why would the networks snub thier noses at another revenue stream from the same content, that could run in parallel with the air and cable broadcasts going out to the people that don’t have the Apple box?

Just a thought… and thanks Mike for spurring the thought and providing a platform to reply.

As for the equipment if its similar to the mac mini in price and features, then its a reasonable purchase considering it would be more then a tivo.

I think I’m with the others that have said that watching concerts on Tv just isn’t that great. I also buy tons of music, but almost no music DVDs.

I think the pay-per-view concert idea would be a nice addition to a set top box for Apple, but I don’t think it’s a concept to base an entire product on. It’s just too niche, I think.

I’d like to see Apple buy TiVo, build a new set-top box using its DVR tech (after all, it’s Linux-based, should be easily portable to OS X), Apple-ify the user interface skin (the UI itself doesn’t need much work — they could just give it a visual overhaul to make it Apple-y), and then re-write the TiVo Home Media software into a Mac OS X (and Windows?) service that would serve up iTunes, iPhoto, etc.

In order words, I want what the TiVo Home Media setup already gives me — but I want Apple to take it over and do it right. As it stands, the Mac version is lagging behind the Windows version and it won’t play AAC files out-of-the-box.

I really think the server/client model is the way Apple should go with this. It’s different from the WMC way, but I think every bit as good. Let me store my music, movies, and photos on my Mac (or PC?) in my office, and let me stream them to my TV via the MacTopTiVo.

1. The concert functionality is obviously in addition to the normal Tivo-like functionality you’d expect from a device like this. The time-shifting of TV, commercial-skipping, etc is still what you’d use the device for 90% of the time. I just didn’t dedicate any of this entry to that because there’s not a whole lot to say that hasn’t already been said before. An Apple-polished Tivo guide interface, integration with OS X, etc… that’s all part of the plan too. The music angle would just be the eye-opening kicker. It would be the “exclusive content” for owners of this box… just as some of the live music in the iTMS is exclusive to iTMS users. Once the system is up, you could probably offer the same shows to PC people via a web client, but it would still all run through Apple.
2. Buying a concert this way is not meant as a substitution for going to the show. You can still go to concerts and you still will. But for that U2 show in Dublin, even if you’re a U2 fan, what are the chances you’re flying across the pond to see that? Some people have mentioned that they don’t watch a lot of concert DVDs. I don’t either, but officially released concert DVDs actually sell pretty well… and besides, to me the main asset my $10 buys me is the CD burned from this concert. I would listen to that quite a bit. When I go to a record store and head to, say, the “Soul Coughing” section, the first thing I look for is if any “live” CDs are for sale. If they are, I always buy them before (or in addition to) any studio albums. This sort of system just puts more live CDs at your disposal. I know there are also people who currently trade live shows for free, but most artists do not grant users these rights. Wilco does, Phish does, The Dead does, and many others do, but for most bands, trading concerts is an unendorsed activity.

I think the idea for a set-top box is a great idea for apple. Remember the rumors of the Mac Mini being Apple’s set-top box?

This is a perfect avenue for iTunes, and iPhoto. There are also rumors of Apple entering the online movie niche offering a store much like iTunes is for music. Apple already has a wonderful platform for graphics, graphic design, movie editing, digital video, etc. Why not take advantages of the synergies of both companies, and enter into the rising popularity of the PVR market? It makes a lot of sense to me!

TiVo Home Media has already begun to do this, but has not come up with a totally effective way of integrating their service with the average computer user. Granted, the average computer user has a Windows PC sitting on their desktop at home, but Apple managed to find a workaround for this with iTunes.

I think the companies are a great match, it’s a heck of a deal for apple at the current price.

Apple will not come into an industry, especially one so established, regulated and competitive, without an angle. They would not make an iCar unless it could fly. They would not make iAspirin unless it could end headaches and make you really good at math.

My guess is that Apple will give Tivo an iPod-type overhaul. Simple and powerful. The main box (maybe a specially branded Mac Mini) will be hooked up to the main cable or satellite box in the house. It will have all the browse/record functions. Phase 2 will involve sending out the recorded programs through the AirPort. Each television in the house will need a small receiver that will get the wireless signal and display an interface, and will have a remote control.

The other thing I see happening is a simple shift of paranoid bedfellows: from the RIAA to the MPAA. Apple could stream movies to a set-top box. Either they could have an iTunes-like store to buy movies or they could have a NetFlix/Napster style subscription service. Much like Netflix, the user could have a queue, which would keep 3 movies at a time on your box. Watch one, and then tell the box to get the next on your list, which will download overnight.

So am I the only one who loves live albums here? Perhaps I overestimated how popular live music is. To me, a top-quality live album is worth a lot more than a studio album. Maybe it’s just the bands I listen to… I don’t know. The sort of offering I’m talking about would not serve to replace actually “going to a concert”. It would replace “NOT going to a concert” (which is what people do most of the time).

So am I the only one who loves live albums here? Perhaps I overestimated how popular live music is. To me, a top-quality live album is worth a lot more than a studio album. Maybe it’s just the bands I listen to… I don’t know. The sort of offering I’m talking about would not serve to replace actually “going to a concert”. It would replace “NOT going to a concert” (which is what people do most of the time).

I’m with you. I love live music. But, then again, I majored in music (at first and then arts management) in college, so maybe i’m not a good guage of demand for live music. That’s one of the reasons I like Sirius so much, because they can fit extended live cuts into their format. In fact, Sirius 17 Jam_On plays predominantly live cuts, though they mostly play jam bands (as the name implies).

It would be interesting to know how much success DirecTV has with their pay-per-view concerts (which are usually label-produced featurettes put out on DVD), along with their “Freeview” weekends, when they play them for free.

If you want to know what I was talking about with the kinds of hurdles a service like this would have to overcome with record labels and other large corporations, consider the following excerpt from Kimbrew McLeod’s new book Freedom of Expression®: Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity:

Clear Channel Communications, which controls more than one hundred live venues and over thirteen hundred radio stations in the United States, bought what is considered in the music industry to be an important patent. It covers selling recordings of concerts immediately after a performance, something that has recently become popular with fans who want to take home live CDs. Other companies had been providing this service, but Clear Channel intends to enforce its patent to squeeze licensing fees from other small businesses and bands and to eliminate competition in this area of commerce. “It’s one more step toward massive control and consolidation of Clear Channel’s corporate agenda,” says Mike Luba, the manager of the jam band String Cheese Incident, which was prevented by the corporate Goliath from using CD-burning equipment. Pixies manager Ken Goes grumbled, “I’m not fond of doing business with my arm twisted behind my back.”

Way back when people said the same thing, “I like actually going to the general store and seeing the product, not ordering it from that Sears Roebuck catalog”. Along those lines, some of us don’t live in big markets where there’s a headline group coming through every week. Most of the time we get passed over and I have to drive at least 2-4 hours to get to a show. Let’s see…$120 for two tickets, $25 in gas, $35 food, and (as an option) $120 for a hotel room. Gee….$10 for a disc or $200-$300 for a three hour concert?