Of course Apple will demand the lions share of the revenue. CBS should tell them to take a hike.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
CBS Open to Talks on Apple TV, Depending on "What We Get Paid"
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course Apple will demand the lions share of the revenue. CBS should tell them to take a hike.
Absolutely. I love being stuck paying exorbitant amounts of money for near-worthless content because the content providers are adamant in their antiquity. There's no need for them to reform, improve, or in any way change their pricing structure to better suit the needs of consumers, right?
CBS, the company that aired Star Trek...
Does this mean that there will be free Star Trek on the Apple TV? It's free on CBS.com.
----------
Let's see, there is a high supply of different media players and a low supply of mainstream media. What I mean is that Apple, MS, Google, and countless others have media boxes, but certain media is only released by a few companies.
Hopefully Apple will realize this and not do its usual "We made the market, so you pay to play." thing. This is not like the iPod or Mac. They can always turn to more lenient media centers.
----------
I strongly agree about the App Store, but only certain apps would work of course. I actually use a universal remote for my Apple TV, which I use very rarely. It was only $5 at Radioshack on clearance, and it's very nice with light-up buttons and high-end plastic. I also use it for my speakers, TV, and DVD player.
Does this mean that there will be free Star Trek on the Apple TV? It's free on CBS.com.
----------
Let's see, there is a high supply of different media players and a low supply of mainstream media. What I mean is that Apple, MS, Google, and countless others have media boxes, but certain media is only released by a few companies.
Hopefully Apple will realize this and not do its usual "We made the market, so you pay to play." thing. This is not like the iPod or Mac. They can always turn to more lenient media centers.
----------
I strongly agree about the App Store, but only certain apps would work of course. I actually use a universal remote for my Apple TV, which I use very rarely. It was only $5 at Radioshack on clearance, and it's very nice with light-up buttons and high-end plastic. I also use it for my speakers, TV, and DVD player.
Can someone explain this...
I thought that you could essentially get CBS, FOX, ABC, etc for free with an antenna and even in HD. Why the need to be paid for it?
I thought that you could essentially get CBS, FOX, ABC, etc for free with an antenna and even in HD. Why the need to be paid for it?
Roku
Sadly, we now have an apple tv, roku, and now cable. Got the roku since amazon had one more season of Doc Martin than Netflix.
But the problem that needs to be fixed is breaking up creation and distribution. The conglomerates inhibit change.
(I really do hate the roku though-- every aspect is cheap and clunky. Wish Amazon could be on appletv.)
Sadly, we now have an apple tv, roku, and now cable. Got the roku since amazon had one more season of Doc Martin than Netflix.
But the problem that needs to be fixed is breaking up creation and distribution. The conglomerates inhibit change.
(I really do hate the roku though-- every aspect is cheap and clunky. Wish Amazon could be on appletv.)
You'd just prefer to continue to help build the Apple monopoly? Or do you think Apple will lower the cost to benefit the consumer like they do with their other products. Oh wait, they don't do that, do they?
Not every internet provider is a content provider. If they tried to cap your internet, their customer base would bleed out even faster. In most cities, there are options for internet other than the content provider. And if there aren't, companies will rush to fill the demand.
----------
I agree it probably won't happen anytime soon. But I think this would be a long term strategy for Apple. They HAVE to find some way to loosen the grip of the content providers. Hulu, Netflix, and Amazon Instant Video (I expect this to show up on Apple TV before the end of the year) goes a long way. But live sports is the straw that will break the camel's back, so to speak. And let's face it, contracts aren't written in stone - they can be bought with enough money. Apple has always talked about building up a war chest. What better way to use it than to buy yourself some leverage over the content providers?
----------
1) Not everywhere. I'm in Portland, because of the way my apartment faces, I can only get CBS and the signal keeps flickering in and out.
2) The point of watching it through Apple TV (or other TV box) is that you could select the show you want to watch, rather than having to adjust your schedule to fit the channel's programming. This is the major reason I prefer Hulu over OTA TV even if I could receive all of them.
Little?
70 Million Xbox users, couple million phone users...oh yeah, 1.25 billion windows users, I'd doubt they are small
Ironic
CBS thinks THEY are the ones with all the bargaining power. Just shows they don't see the revolution that is already happening which will eventually result in the end of the traditional TV industry.
They better BEG Apple to take them before CBS starts "running on fumes".
CBS thinks THEY are the ones with all the bargaining power. Just shows they don't see the revolution that is already happening which will eventually result in the end of the traditional TV industry.
They better BEG Apple to take them before CBS starts "running on fumes".
I agree that live sports, especially the NFL, is a huge draw which is all the more reason that FOX, CBS, NBC, ESPN and DirecTV aren't going to let Apple buy out their contracts (at least not for a price even Apple could afford). I also agree that content is king and right now Apple doesn't have enough exclusive content to make
TV stand out from the crowd (especially since much of TV's functionality is so common now it comes standard w/internet ready TVs and Blu-ray players). Once contracts start expiring I think we'll see a lot more diversity of program distribution.
The big question, IMO, is why would content providers want to exclusively want to deal w/Apple? Content providers don't want to be beholden to Apple the way the music industry is so any sort of exclusive buy is going to have a huge premium on it. These companies have seen the success of things like Netflix's streaming and are adjusting their prices according (Netflix's contracts w/the studios are jumping from millions to billions of dollars). Some companies, like Starz, have ended their relationship w/Netflix and presumably are going to go their own way. And why not take a stab at selling directly to the customer when it's never been easier to not need a middle man?
And just exactly what massive leverage does Apple have? There are a number of ways for CBS to stream their content such as are internet-ready TVs and Blu-ray players, Roku, Boxee, PS3, Wii/Wii U, Xbox 360, WD TV Live, Seagate GoFlex TV, Netflix, Amazon streaming...
What about a Disney channel
I thought Laurene Jobs was the largest individual shareholder of Disney. Doesn't Disney have a ton of material for their own channel? Maybe Apple should do what they did in the past and leverage Disney on the Apple TV with their own channel. This device should be a subscription model where you only pay for the channels you want.
I thought Laurene Jobs was the largest individual shareholder of Disney. Doesn't Disney have a ton of material for their own channel? Maybe Apple should do what they did in the past and leverage Disney on the Apple TV with their own channel. This device should be a subscription model where you only pay for the channels you want.
Or pointing out the fact that a typical home theater could have 5-8 devices and without a universal remote you are going to be juggling remotes to turn things on and off
Last edited:
Well, they create a very large majority of the content Apple is after, and as it stands, CBS goes over Sat, Cable, And Over the Air, and the net, which can reach FAR more people than what an Apple TV can.
Ugh, I totally forgot about that.
I think Apple realizes that would not be a very good buy in the sense that, I think Apple would be unable to manage a company like that. And, I could see a pretty huge conflict of interest on that, Plus I don't want Apple to ruin that company. Because they would, and you know it.
Until someone else builds studios, gains local news stations, writers, ect ect ect. Theres a TON of infrstruce behind it. The local news stations would be the hardest thing to come by, and people who live in those cities depend on those news stations, big time. I could see tons of them jumping ship if Apple were to buy CBS.
Agree 100%, but that won't happen until they can reach as many people as Sat, Cable, and over the air ( yes, its still HUGE ). The internet is massive and most people have it, but most people still depend on Cable/Sat. And tons of people depend on over the air. I don't think people really realize how big over the air still is, esp now that its available in HD, for free.
Local and the nightly news shows are also HUGE for the networks, can Apple TV replace over the air news stations? Or local news stations? No it cannot.
I could totally see that happening in the coming years/decades. And I'm all for more competition, however. The news is a big thing to, and I really don't see ANY of these companies being able to get a handle on.
It is totally possible, but to reach everyone, you still need a cable network, you still need your own Sat service, and you still need over the air transmitters.
Its a very uncretain future, we are still far away from the net being able to replace, everything. OVer the Air being a HUGE one.
Or we can just refuse to buy **** that we don't want. Yes I'm on strike, not that it will have any real effect on their profits.
Netflix seems to be getting my money on AppleTV
I don't know if Netflix is paying Apple a fee to be on AppleTV, but certainly my payments for the service are going directly to Netflix. And certainly Netflix is making money off of the service.
Hulu likewise is doing the same thing. The money goes to Hulu first, not to Apple.
CBC would be in the same boat.
I don't know if Netflix is paying Apple a fee to be on AppleTV, but certainly my payments for the service are going directly to Netflix. And certainly Netflix is making money off of the service.
Hulu likewise is doing the same thing. The money goes to Hulu first, not to Apple.
CBC would be in the same boat.
You're right, just like music. Before iTunes songs were much less expensive than they are now. Oh wait, that didn't happen, did it?
Last edited:
Jailbreak?
hi guys, i bought ATV3 last week.
I checked the firmware and its 5.0...(must have been sitting on the shelf a while)
Anyway, i can update over the air, but i wanted to make sure before I update whether ATv3 on 5.0 is jailbreakable?
Thanks
hi guys, i bought ATV3 last week.
I checked the firmware and its 5.0...(must have been sitting on the shelf a while)
Anyway, i can update over the air, but i wanted to make sure before I update whether ATv3 on 5.0 is jailbreakable?
Thanks
Apple started iTunes to benefit themselves, not the artist or consumer as they well should as a for profit company. Fortunately for them a legion of fans fall for for whatever they do, hook, line and sinker. Right or wrong.
I don't care why they did it - at least you agree that they lowered the price of music for fans. They did the same thing with mobile applications. I'll take the same thing with television, whatever their motives.
I say screw the networks. The only way anyone is going to have success in this streaming game is to become their own network and produce their own awesome shows like HBO, Showtime, Netflix, etc. Apple should begin producing original series to release with their much rumored future AppleTV.