Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple's New Vision for Apple TV 'Less Ambitious' Than Before

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,481
30,717



appletv-e1382101627468.png
Apple's plans for its revamped Apple TV have been scaled back compared to what the company had previously intended, reports The Wall Street Journal. According to the publication, Apple was originally approaching media companies directly to obtain content rights for an ambitious a-la-carte-Internet-enabled TV set-top box, but has since gone in a different direction.
In the current discussions, which involve at least two big media companies, Apple envisages working with cable companies, rather than competing against them, the people said. For programming, it would rely on cable providers to acquire programming rights from media companies, rather than acquire them on its own, the people said. Apple might consider seeking some rights directly in the future, one of the people said.
Click to expand...
Apple had been trying to negotiate with companies like CBS and Disney to offer the networks' content directly to Apple customers over the Internet, cutting out cable and satellite providers like Comcast, Time Warner and DirecTV. However, the media companies consistently pulled out of negotiations, fearing that any potential deal with Apple could damage their revenue streams.

Apple's ambitious plans went even further, as the company hoped to erase the distinction between live and on-demand TV, allowing users to watch any show at any time via iCloud as well as being able to skip commercials. In addition, Apple explored the possibility of paying media companies more for ad-free TV.

Having abandoned those lofty ideas in the face of failed negotiations, Apple is now asking content providers for the last five episodes of any given show rather than an entire season. This structure is similarly used by Hulu and is considered a standard amongst TV show streaming services.
Apple's latest approach is far less ambitious. Instead of asking for full current seasons of shows, it is asking programmers for just the most recent five episodes of current-season shows--the standard for video-on-demand services in the TV industry, a person familiar with the matter said. Apple is also proposing to disable fast-forwarding on shows for three days after they air, which would protect TV channels.
Click to expand...
The Wall Street Journal also suggests that it is unclear whether Apple will sell its own box or allow cable distributors to lease boxes to customers when the company is able to establish a deal for a television service.

Apple has long been in negotiations with Time Warner Cable for some sort of television-related product, with a recent report suggesting talks are ongoing. Apple may run into some trouble reaching a deal with TWC, however, as Comcast has reportedly inked a deal to purchase the company.

Apple may be planning to unveil a redesigned Apple TV box in April, which is rumored to include both app and game support, but it is unclear whether that product will also offer new television-related content.

Article Link: Apple's New Vision for Apple TV 'Less Ambitious' Than Before
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/02/12/apple-tv-less-ambitious-than-before/
jav6454

jav6454

macrumors Core
Nov 14, 2007
22,303
6,257
1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
How is less ambitious good? These media companies need to realize that what the WWF did is the most amazing service ever. More to the point, cable companies need to realize what AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile realized, they are just dumb pipes for us.
 
L

levitynyc

macrumors 65816
Aug 19, 2006
1,123
3,704
At this point, Apple should just take Apple TV out back and shoot it.

I own 3 of them and they are really getting long in the tooth. The UI is terrible and slow. Netflix barely works on it anymore.

The Roku 3 can do nearly everything the Apple TV can do, plus it has a better remote and it works with Amazon Prime.
 
D

dansix

macrumors member
Apr 17, 2012
84
2
If Steve were alive, he would have gotten the deal done. He's probably the only one that could have gotten that deal done though.
 
J

jonyive4

macrumors member
Oct 14, 2013
83
1
I want:
iCloud with unlimited storage, let iCloud record all channels for you to your own iCloud space. Go to a particular day of TV programming by using Time Machine for iCloud TV. Streamed to my iPad. Easily search for an episode by typing in "Breaking Bad s03e12" in Spotlight. Only $99/year.
.
.
.
and I also want to touch Olivia Wilde.
 
Koodauw

Koodauw

macrumors 68040
Nov 17, 2003
3,951
190
Madison
dansix said:
If Steve were alive, he would have gotten the deal done. He's probably the only one that could have gotten that deal done though.
Click to expand...

Is this a time where the phrase "Steve would have never..." is actually applicable?

Hard to say, but I don't think the deal with ATT and the iPhone was exactly what Steve wanted either, but it was what they could work out. Who knows.
 
ck2875

ck2875

macrumors 65816
Mar 25, 2009
1,029
2,923
Brighton
I don't often say that Apple should follow Google, but they should bypass cable companies altogether and go the Google Fiber route. They really need to stop being an aggregator for cable companies and be the source if cable companies aren't willing to play ball.

----------
AustinIllini said:
So this would be Microsoft winning. XBox One already does this stuff.
Click to expand...

...For 5x the price of an Apple TV.
 
E

Eriden

macrumors regular
Sep 5, 2006
167
15
Content providers have been in "negotiations" with Apple for five or more years now. They don't want to play ball, because they fear Apple doing to TV with aTV what they did to music with itunes. No deals are forthcoming.

The thing I really want to see from the aTV is the App Store along with support for Bluetooth controllers. If Apple went out of its way to make it easy for developers, the so-called Steambox would be dead before it ever made its way into the hands of consumers. aTV could eventually be a viable competitor to Playstation and Xbox.
 
A

akm3

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2007
2,252
279
jonyive4 said:
I want:
iCloud with unlimited storage, let iCloud record all channels for you to your own iCloud space. Go to a particular day of TV programming by using Time Machine for iCloud TV. Streamed to my iPad. Easily search for an episode by typing in "Breaking Bad s03e12" in Spotlight. Only $99/year.
.
.
.
and I also want to touch Olivia Wilde.
Click to expand...

We want all the same things. Is it too much to ask?
 
G

gatearray

macrumors 65816
Apr 24, 2010
1,130
232
levitynyc said:
At this point, Apple should just take Apple TV out back and shoot it.

I own 3 of them and they are really getting long in the tooth. The UI is terrible and slow. Netflix barely works on it anymore.
Click to expand...

Which version ATV are you using with a Netflix that "barely works on it" anymore? I've never heard of such a thing and it sounds like utter ******** to me so I'm curious. :)
 
-AG-

-AG-

macrumors regular
Jan 24, 2010
118
45
Austalia
or..... it could just be an analyst over at WSJ that has made something up because his sources are no longer getting fed direct information from Apple R&D.

Pretty much EVERY Apple TV article and rumour has been loosely based on that one line from the Issacson book.

We don't know what Apple are going to offer in the future when it comes to the TV realm because up until recently it has been classified as nothing more than a "hobby" and anyone that says they do are purely speculating or trying to get hits to their page.

Lets wait and be pleasantly surprised.
 
S

SusanK

macrumors 68000
Oct 9, 2012
1,676
2,655
Koodauw said:
Is this a time where the phrase "Steve would have never..." is actually applicable?

Hard to say, but I don't think the deal with ATT and the iPhone was exactly what Steve wanted either, but it was what they could work out. Who knows.
Click to expand...


I don't think the poster was making a negative remark about Cook. Steve was persuasive. Don't know if he seduced them or just worried the devil out of providers. Whatever it was it worked. Founders cannot be replaced. Just the way it is. Steve had that passion and drive.
 
L

LunaticSX

macrumors newbie
May 26, 2011
17
2
dansix said:
If Steve were alive, he would have gotten the deal done. He's probably the only one that could have gotten that deal done though.
Click to expand...

If Steve were alive, he would have tasked Eddy Cue with getting the deals done, just as he did before, and the result would have largely been the same.

Don't forget, Steve Jobs wasn't able to sign a deal with Verizon for the original iPhone, and AT&T (Cingular) was the fallback. And before that Apple had to capitulate to the record labels on variable song pricing rather than being able to keep it at $0.99 per song across the board.
 
P

petsounds

macrumors 65816
Jun 30, 2007
1,493
519
dansix said:
If Steve were alive, he would have gotten the deal done. He's probably the only one that could have gotten that deal done though.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Eddy Cue has done all the industry dealing in the past. Jobs's personality was too coarse and inflexible to have done it by himself. But Jobs-era Apple got those big deals done because Steve had the internal force of will to see them through.

It remains to be seen what it'll end up as, but my feeling is Tim Cook doesn't have the tenacity to do an iTunes sort of industry shakeup. But then again, even Jobs was getting a lot of pushback from the TV industry while he was alive. Apple got lucky with music that the industry was on the ropes. TV/film is still relatively strong, despite piracy, and they don't feel the need to negotiate especially since cable companies own a lot of the content (and now it's rumored Time Warner is being bought by Comcast). It's a shame because we need Apple to shakeup this monopolistic industry a lot more than the record industry.
 
P

pjwal

macrumors newbie
Feb 12, 2014
22
14
Wrong direction

Move forward with the actual content providers...writers, producers, etc. Open a studio!. Distribute original content, buy Netflix and AMC for crissake, continue to license AMC's shows to the cable providers. The distribution rights to Walking Dead alone would line up these old school utility companies rather quickly.

Get in the driver's seat and then you can get in the living room. If the established market foundation isn't flexible enough for you, build your own for the consumer.
 
Yr Blues

Yr Blues

macrumors 68030
Jan 14, 2008
2,687
889
Apple should open up a studio for live action shows like Jobs did with Pixar. Make their own content a la Netflix.

At least experiment with something.
 
D

Dreamer2go

macrumors 6502a
Jun 23, 2007
679
303
I don't trust this unless Apple unveils their product. Months later, we will know the back story!
 
J

jettredmont

macrumors 68030
Jul 25, 2002
2,731
328
At first, I was very disappointed in this. Then I read that quote again.

In the current discussions, which involve at least two big media companies, Apple envisages working with cable companies, rather than competing against them, the people said.
Click to expand...

No ****. Of course Apple is claiming to these companies that they are going to work with them rather than compete! That's how negotiations go. You don't walk in with a knife and say "This is what I'm going to stab you in the back with. Now bend over!"

For programming, it would rely on cable providers to acquire programming rights from media companies, rather than acquire them on its own, the people said.
Click to expand...

... in other words, exactly what the current "apps" already do. So, this is describing negotiations for following the status quo of "app channels" on the ATV.

Apple might consider seeking some rights directly in the future, one of the people said.
Click to expand...

... and that's the most important line of them all.

In other news, the sky is blue and ice is cold.
 
A

axual

macrumors regular
Oct 31, 2007
214
4
Channel / network management are babies

I am willing pay more per channel than they current receive from cable or satellite providers.

True, I could care less about 200 of 220 channels.

If a network or channel is not strong enough to hold an audience, then they should go bye bye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom