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

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,652
39,525



141621-twc_apple_amazon_logos.jpg


Over the past few weeks, a pair of announcements have seen Time Warner Cable announce a live TV app for iPad and Amazon unveil cloud-based storage for music, two areas in which Apple has been rumored to be trying to roll out its own offerings but has yet to do so.

One of the primary barriers for Apple seems to have been its preference to try to work with the content providers, companies that have traditionally been slow to adopt new technologies and distribution methods. Ever since Apple's December 2009 acquisition of Lala Media, observers have speculated that the company has been looking to deploy a cloud-based iTunes service.

In fact, sources such as CNET have kept a close eye on Apple's efforts to bring music and even video to the cloud, noting a number of times that negotiations with record labels and movie and television studios have been slow to proceed and that Apple was unlikely to roll out the services without the agreement of the content providers, as the company would be likely to find itself in court without it. Apple has also been said to have pitched TV subscription plans to TV networks in a bid to circumvent traditional cable TV service, but the company saw little success with those negotiations.

Enter Time Warner Cable (itself part of a media conglomerate generating music, TV, and movie content) and Amazon, which both appear to have taken the bull by the horns and released their new services without the blessing of content providers and are now facing backlash from those companies.

Time Warner's app, which streams live TV content to the iPad, offers 32 channels and is limited to users who subscribe to both Time Warner cable and Internet services, and is only functional through each user's own home network, in effect serving simply as another television in the household. But the arrangement has been viewed as unacceptable by a number of content providers, with Viacom vehemently objecting to the inclusion of its channels in the application and Fox and Scripps sending cease-and-desist letters to Time Warner demanding that their channels be removed.

For its part, Time Warner Cable has rolled out a dedicated site appealing to consumers and asking for their support in the increasingly bitter battle between the cable operator and the networks over iPad app access.

A similar story took place at Amazon, where the company rolled out its Cloud Player for music earlier this week without the agreement of record labels, many of whom claim that the use is not permitted under current music licensing deals. Amazon has tried to sidestep legal issues by requiring users to upload their own copies of digital music files, appearing to believe that such a "passive" setup would be allowed under law. According to The Wall Street Journal, Amazon is now going back to record labels in an effort to secure licensing deals that would allow for a more efficient system in which Amazon could house centralized libraries of music tracks with users being offered access to them on a song-by-song basis as determined by a database outlining their ownership of tracks.

It remains to be seen just which approach will prove more successful, as users rush to embrace new products and services that allow them access content on the go while content providers remain slow to respond to the rapidly-changing technological advancements. Companies like Time Warner and Amazon that are plowing ahead possess significant first-move advantage in the market, but may face hurdles of lawsuits and eroding relationships with content providers that could cause difficulties for the companies. On the other hand, Apple appears to have worked to bring all stakeholders on board before launching its offerings, but has little other than rumors and speculation to show for it so far.

Article Link: Time Warner and Amazon Forge Ahead as Apple Negotiates With Content Providers
 
If Amazon wants to continue selling music, they better get on board with the studios.

The reason that Apple doesn't just "roll it out" is that they don't want to jeopardize their cash cow, iTunes.
 
doesn't Slingbox already do this? And can't you be remote viewing your TV content?
and not be stuck in the house?
 
What is the big deal with the Time Warner app?

We've had TV on our iPhones/iPads in France since the 3GS...
 
I use the Time Warner app to stream live tv on my iPad 2 and it works seamlessly. Fox yesterday demanded more money from TW and its subscribers for content streaming to the iPad. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I have also signed up for the Amazon cloud service just for the hell of it, and found a .69 cent album which now gives me 20 GB of service. C'mon Apple, lets swing for the fences and get MobileMe rocking and rolling....
 
This is great for us (don't you just love competition), should put an extra fire under Apple's butt.
 
How about this for a solution,

1. You can only stream content that you have purchased from Amazon.
2. Amazon requires you to upload the content that you have purchased from them back to their server.
3. The Amazon server looks to see if the content is binary identical to the one you purchased. If yes, it deletes your upload and lets you listen to the original master copy Amazon has.

That should be complicated and generally stupid enough to make the RIAA happy. If not, they could require you to sign a EULA each time you listen to a song and they could make you sign a NDA so you can't let anyone else listen to your music. They could even make you delete your songs after 30 plays.
 
If Amazon wants to continue selling music, they better get on board with the studios.

The reason that Apple doesn't just "roll it out" is that they don't want to jeopardize their cash cow, iTunes.

Indeed. With the huge legal departments both companies have you'd think they would have checked before anything got posted.

It's kind of ironic, Time Warner, in part a content company who sued many people as part of the MPAA & RIAA mafias, getting C & D from another media company for essentially pulling a Napster. It remains to be seen if Viacom pursues legal action against TW subscribers who used the app. I see that type of action as a ploy to get TW to pay for content.
 
This is great for us (don't you just love competition), should put an extra fire under Apple's butt.

What competition. If Apple were legally allowed to provide the same service, this would be competition. As it is, this is just Amazon standing on a mountain, waving a golf club over their heads in the middle of a thunderstorm shouting, "The RIAA are all a bunch of loons, so sue me!"
 
Finally!

Frankly, I'm glad to see that some fairly heavyweight companies are putting pressure on the content providers to open up the spigots to more streaming options. It should work a lot better than my puny boycott!
 
Not thorn, that's an IV drip

This should make the content providers look at Apple as an IV drip provider rather than a thorn in their side.
 
My hope is Apple and Google push the issue so they are fighting in our interests as content consumers.

Beyond that too, I want to see artists on the music front come out and say that they want their music to be able to listened to people from their own cloud drive to their own devices. Anyone who listens to music knows what a dumb position the record labels are taking.

Now is the time to press this issue with all these content providers, the Time Warner deal is more of the same. It is not a new use, it is simply another screen in a home to see the same licensed content. We all have to push back now at these content providers as they try their hardest to charge us over and over for the same content we already paid for...

And in case anyone wants to get this twisted, there is no additional cost or expense for these content providers in these cases, so it is really selling the same content. As opposed to say a wireless company having to supply more data and take on more expenses when someone uses tethering on a smartphone.
 
The cable companies may see the writing on the wall, their customers are bailing out. I think this app was just a futile attempt to try and keep them. Sometimes you try to circumvent the norm and hope it sticks.
 
If Amazon wants to continue selling music, they better get on board with the studios.

The reason that Apple doesn't just "roll it out" is that they don't want to jeopardize their cash cow, iTunes.

Since when did something making revenues less than 1%, and even lower profits, start being deemed a "cash cow"?
 
If Apple and Amazon want to take truly effective action in the war the RIAA is fighting against the rest of humanity, they should start finding good unsigned bands (There are many), then feature them on the front page of iTunes and Amazon.com.

The day good bands can make money without the labels is the day the RIAA will be dead.
 
The large media conglomerates won't be interested in signing onto any new technology until they can effectively monitor it for ratings purposes.

Ratings = Ad Sales = $$

And even then, they'll force you to watch at least two and a half minutes of spots per each hour of programming you want to watch.

For example I love ABC News to death but if you spend any time at all on their website, you'll realize how ludicrous it is that every time you want to watch a video relating to a news story, you have to watch a :60 ad for a prescription drug before hand.

I hate commercials, funny thing is, my paycheck is supported by them... :(
 
Last edited:
This is part of the reason why people steal music/movies/videos.... com'on get with the times.... let me listen/watch the things I paid for where ever/when ever I want!!
 
The large media conglomerates won't be interested in signing onto any new technology until they can effectively monitor it for ratings purposes.

Ratings = Ad Sales = $$

And even then, they'll force you to watch at least two and a half minutes of spots per each hour of programming you want to watch.

For example I love ABC News to death but if you spend any time at all on their website, you'll realize how ludicrous it is that every time you want to watch a video relating to a news story, you have to watch a :60 ad for a prescription drug before hand.

IU hate commercials, funny thing is, my paycheck is supported by them... :(

This is why I hate news sites that don't have text transcripts of their stories. You can spend five minutes watching a story, or you can spend six seconds reading it. Why toss your time in the trash?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.