… exe
number one reason for document conversion. most chris canty supply companies have found that laminating identification badges add to them is for advertising purposes. retransfer involves printing the image on chris canty use of photolumines… …

Well, DivX has the system, the footprint and access to content from Sony and WB. BTW that’s nearly 50% of all Hollywood titles. So the trick seems to be finding customers. The iTMS is the most successful vendor of digital media and even Apple admits its a break-even business with just 25 sales/iPod total. So it’s not surprising that few distributors are lining up to operate a break-even business competing against Apple online and Wal-Mart brick-and-morter.

In fact, cable and satellite TV are also break-even business models. They have PPV but most of their profit actually comes from one category; adult video.

Apple went with EDGE in the original iPhone because 3G support would have given the handset really atrocious battery life rather than bad-to-mediocre. Finding a carrier crazy enough to run an older network technology for a while longer or even extending coverage for what then already essentially was a sideline of history was quite the coup. AT&T needed iPhone much more than iPhone would need AT&T in a perfect world, but going exclusive probably allowed Apple to extract several promises from AT&T regarding network buildout that it otherwise would not have gotten and that probably made the iPhone the success it was.

DivX Video On Demand has been available for years and enables commercial video content to over 100 million devices without Microsoft DRM.
http://vod.divx.com
http://investors.divx.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=340248
http://investors.divx.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=318011

DivX also offers a slot rental system similar to what Daniel envisioned here http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/12/07/how-apple-could-deliver-workable-itunes-rentals/

[Thanks for posting this. But is DivX supplying commercial video in the sense of "things one can pay for" or "things I might actually want to watch"? The links only talk about DivX partners, without giving any real examples that I saw. There's a big gulf between coming up with a system and actually getting access to studio content, and also finding actual customers. - Dan ]

Now if there was one box connected to the TV and it was an Apple UI that ran the show top to bottom, including DVR functionality, then Sir, I would agree 150%. Great combo. And maybe ATT would do that. I think its lame though. Why? Because then we’d be sitting behind ATT’s slow roll-out. Its taking forever.

Much rather see a solution based on Tru2Way so that anyone with a cable connection could set it up. I just think that taking the leap to Apple is hard enough, don’t want to have to be dragged into changing cable providers too, especially if the service is not offered in your area.

Check out my original post. There would be nothing to prevent AT&T and Apple from implementing some software hooks and integration for ATV users who are also using Uverse. My Uverse remote has five inputs across the top. It shouldn’t be too hard for AT&T to work with Apple and re-program one of them to say “ATV”. Regardless, the ATV remote is one of the simplest pieces of input hardware I have ever used. On my system, HDMI Input 1 controls my Uverse. HDMI Input 2 controls my ATV. I fail to see how this is complicated beyond the comprehension of ANY average consumer, much less one seeking a 300 channel HDTV + DVR setup via Uverse. Call me crazy, but I think those subscribers would “get” the little white remote that came with their free ATV 3.0. The point would be for AT&T and Apple to market the combo as the “iPhone” for your home theater. The ATV interface is slick, just like the iPhone, and it would not be difficult to package and market the killer combination of Uverse and ATV. See post from @lyndell above.

Maybe the proposed ATV hardware subsidy is “stupid” as you say. But there is no doubt that AT&T has benefited immensely from the iPhone exclusivity agreement with Apple. Maybe AT&T would like to entice Apple to renew that agreement via a side deal entailing an ATV hardware subsidy that *exponentially* expands the install base of ATV. THAT….hardly seems “stupid” to me (for either company).

Glad you are enjoying your ATV. I just think its really a narrow audience that wants more boxes connected to their TV. People really have trouble with input selection and knowing what remote does what. As long as that is an issue, people would rather not have the complexity of more devices. So I don’ t see much value-add for ATT to bundle the ATV assuming there is no real integration. But hey companies do stupid things all the time.

“A lot of people I know are using computers instead of TVs. People who use TVs have have adopted another solution: Tivo, netflix, or a cablebox DVR. None of these are great but they are doing the basic functions that people want. AppleTV doesn’t.”

I think it is safe to assume that millions of people across the globe appreciate (and use) their widescreen HDTVs. I would also bet that those that already use the ATV in their HDTV setup appreciate the ATV for what it does provide, instead of what it doesn’t. Does anyone with an ATV kick back on their couch and watch HD Rev 3 podcasts on their 50 inch LCD? (I watch about 5 different video podcasts a week on my home theater — not just the Rev 3 staples). Does anyone listen to the Adam Carolla Podcast over their home theater while cooking dinner and laugh their as_ off? (I do.) Does anyone appreciate the simplicity of the ATV movie rental GUI and the ever improving new release and back-catalog content? (Again, I do). I am sure thousands of ATV owners have their own specific uses that they would not want to live without.

I appreciate the breakthroughs being made by Hulu and all the other non-traditional broadcasters. However, while I sure this will pis_ many on this board off, no experience staring at a laptop on a coffee table will ever trump the regular consumption the same content from a couch on an HDTV home theater.

I think some of the comments have missed the point of the original post — Apple’s market for the ATV is not college students who can’t afford cable/satellite and want a platform to rent movies (those users are probably using bittorrent anyway). Just like the *majority* of their products, the ATV is for high end users — those who can already afford cable/satellite and want a Set-Top-Box that augments the existing system and adds value. Sure TIVO may offer some of these features, but with monthly subscription fees and a costly hardware purchase. The basic premise of the Daniel’s post (and my alternative proposal) is that ATV needs a vehicle to spur market penetration. My view is…forget complex ATV redesigns for a specific provider. (Why shouldn’t a FIOS customer have an option to add an ATV). A subsidized Uverse/ATV bundle COULD potentially place the ATV in million of households, where it never stood a chance before.

Daniel’s post was right on the money. I just happen to think that no radical redesign of the ATV is necessary to achieve the end result – an ATV in millions of Uverse households, serving up millions of movie rentals, song purchases, and podcast downloads every month. Who is not happy in that equation? The content producers reaping the benefit of a huge spike in VOD rentals? Nope. The service providers reaping the benefit of a huge (recurring) bump in monthly subscribers? Nope. Apple, with millions$$ in additional iTunes revenue via ATV? Nope. If there is a counter-argument as to why this is not likely or possible, by all means, I would love to hear it. I don’t have a crystal ball and can’t predict whether these two corporate behemoths can actually make this happen. I just see it as an easy to implement “SUBSIDIZED HARDWARE BUNDLING PROGRAM” that benefits both companies significantly in the long run (and probably stops several STB competitors cold in their tracks).

I could certainly be wrong. I have been many times in the past. One aspect I may have underestimated is the revenue AT&T earns via their own VOD movie rentals. Sometimes I have the choice of renting the exact same movie over Uverse or ATV. I always choose ATV, because if I get interrupted and decide not to start the movie, I have 30 extra days to watch the rental. I suppose it is possible that AT&T would never cannibalize that VOD revenue stream. But if push comes to shove, I bet even AT&T would admit that two years of guaranteed Uverse subscriber revenue is worth far more than that same subscriber’s lost VOD purchases.

Apple and AT&T should wake up and smell the coffee. Ramp up ATV production ASAP and BUNDLE (the all-new!) ATV 3.0 with Uverse.