Apple Frustrated by Inability to Reach Deals With TV Programmers for Television Service

[MacRumors]

ESPN president John Skipper spoke with The Wall Street Journal in an interview this morning, revealing some insider details on Apple's struggle to establish deals with content providers for a streaming television service.

According to Skipper, Apple is "frustrated" by its ongoing inability to find a mutually advantageous way to work with programmers. Though no deals have been established, ESPN "continues" trying to work with Apple on some kind of partnership.

They are creating a significantly advantageous operating system and a great television experience and that television experience is fabulous for sports. We are big proponents of believing it would be a fabulous place to sell some subscriptions. We have ongoing conversations. They have been frustrated by their ability to construct something which works for them with programmers. We continue to try to work with them.

Skipper's comments are in line with recent rumors made by CBS CEO Les Moonves, who said Apple "pressed the hold button" on its streaming television plans after it was unable to establish the necessary deals. Rumors throughout 2015 suggested Apple was aiming to create a web-based television product that would offer a small bundle of channels for $30 to $40 per month.

Apple has been attempting to create some kind of television service since 2009, but the company has run into resistance from cable and content providers time and time again because of a reluctance to interrupt existing revenue streams and fundamentally shift the way cable is provided.

ESPN's deal with Sling TV, a service that offers streaming access to major cable channels, offers some insight into where Apple may be running into trouble establishing deals. There is an option in ESPN's contract with Sling TV that lets the deal be terminated should it cannibalize ESPN's core pay TV business, something Apple likely wouldn't have agreed to. Apple is also said to have run into trouble getting content providers to unbundle their channels.

While Skipper believes 2016 will see "further announcements" of different streaming packages from new companies, it is not likely Apple will be among them. The company's content struggles have caused it to put its streaming service on hold, with plans to instead focus on the tvOS App Store and its position as a platform that gives media companies tools to sell content directly to customers.

Article Link: Apple Frustrated by Inability to Reach Deals With TV Programmers for Television Service

 

[CrAkD]

I'm frustrated with the HBO go app not saving your location. Everytime I turn it on I have to navigate back to the show I was watching and remember the last episode I was on.

 

[blut haus]

The cable providers are notoriously greedy and out of touch with what people want. They insist on garbage bundling. One good channel with 10 other crap ones. Apple is going to need to use some of that famous cash reserve and invent us something entirely new. Go straight to the content creators.

 

[critter13]

networks see all that apple money in the bank and are holding out for sweet sweet deals. can't blame them but it sucks that the consumer loses. time to just buy dish or twc that way the content deals are taken care of.

 

[macsrcool1234]

If there was one company that could break the power companies have, I was hoping it would be Apple. '

Too bad

 

[Rogifan]

Apple designer, Ben Keighran, involved with the look and feel of Apple TV software is leaving. What's interesting is he reported up through Eddy Cue's org, not Jony Ive's UI team under Alan Dye. That leads me believe Dye's team is mostly responsible for iOS, OS X and Apple Watch and not things like iTunes, Apple TV, iWork, etc.

http://recode.net/2016/01/19/apple-tv-designer-ben-keighran-is-leaving/

 

[ghostface147]

Well duh. The content providers aren't realizing that their old mentality on TV is sold is changing. Not super fast, but it's moving in a different direction. They are scared. Screw them.

 

[farewelwilliams]

what was apple expecting? a breezy deal?

 

[jetjaguar]

Wish apple would just do a service like apple music with their whole movie and tv catalog

 

[MacNut]

ESPN is already losing subscribers on it's own without any help from Sling or Apple. You would think they would jump at a new revenue stream.

 

[blut haus]

Wish apple would just do a service like apple music with their whole movie and tv catalog

YES. Exactly my thoughts.

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

I think the content delivery providers (read Cable & Satellite) are throwing their weight around behind the scenes in all of this, preventing many of the networks from reaching deals with Apple. I feel like they saw what happened in the music industry and are terrified they may have to give up their stranglehold on content, and most importantly the consumer dollars they're currently milking from us.

With Google able to provide gigabit fiber for $30 or $40 per month in some homes, the Cable companies especially don't want to become "Just a dumb delivery pipe" because eventually customers will refuse to pay what I'm sure will be artificially inflated and unjust rates.

 

[macintologist]

I'm a "cord-never." I've never subscribed to cable and I never will, whether it's literally cable or whether it's fed through an internet pipe. I'm never paying $40/month for a bunch of channels I don't want.

 

[Menel]

The cable providers are notoriously greedy and out of touch with what people want. They insist on garbage bundling. One good channel with 10 other crap ones. Apple is going to need to use some of that famous cash reserve and invent us something entirely new. Go straight to the content creators.

Bundles are ok... sometimes.

Hulu nails it. NBC, CW, Fox, ABC. (stills needs CBS for the new Colbert) Bundled in, basically the major over the air channels. But instead of being on their over the air schedule, I'm at the leisure of my own schedule.

Plus Hulu's home grown content.
Plus Comedy Central.

It's quite brilliant. They basically solved it if they would just get CBS. Ad-free for $12/mo. It's perfectly reasonable.

 

[blut haus]

Bundles are ok... sometimes.

Hulu nails it. NBC, CW, Fox, ABC. (stills needs CBS for the new Colbert) Bundled in, basically the major over the air channels. But instead of being on their over the air schedule, I'm at the leisure of my own schedule.

Plus Hulu's home grown content.
Plus Comedy Central.

It's quite brilliant. They basically solved it if they would just get CBS. Ad-free for $12/mo. It's perfectly reasonable.

Yeah, they aren't ALL bad for sure, it's just in my experience, when I cared about cable TV or similar services it was always terrible options. I can't speak for everyone of course, but I want my TV like my music. The ability to pick and choose one or two songs out of an album if I want, without the others I don't want.

TV providers don't seem to get that concept, and then they wonder why people pirate TV shows. (Disclaimer, i'm not advocating piracy).

 

[Amazing Iceman]

It seems that to be able to make good deals in the TV industry, you need to belong to it.

Maybe Apple should look at this from a whole new perspective.
Live broadcasting is nice, but not absolutely necessary (with some good exceptions).

 

[TheRealTVGuy]

Bundles are ok... sometimes.

Hulu nails it. NBC, CW, Fox, ABC. (stills needs CBS for the new Colbert) Bundled in, basically the major over the air channels. But instead of being on their over the air schedule, I'm at the leisure of my own schedule.

Plus Hulu's home grown content.
Plus Comedy Central.

It's quite brilliant. They basically solved it if they would just get CBS. Ad-free for $12/mo. It's perfectly reasonable.

But still no Live sports...

 

[JonneyGee]

I understand their sentiments and I echo their frustration. I don't think they should allow channels to cancel their deals if they see it cannibalizing their cable subscriptions – of course it will – but maybe Apple should allow some bundling instead of going completely a la carte as I would prefer.

I wouldn't mind paying $10/month for WatchESPN (with all their networks included). Some would probably subscribe to a Viacom bundle if it was available for around $15-20/month, but I doubt I would.

 

[Freeks]

I'm frustrated with the HBO go app not saving your location. Everytime I turn it on I have to navigate back to the show I was watching and remember the last episode I was on.

Same with HBO Nordic. It's been like that since beginning. I doubt they will update the app ever.

 

[Juicy Box]

Wish apple would just do a service like apple music with their whole movie and tv catalog

YES. Exactly my thoughts.

People probably would not like the cost of this. I think the rumored service will be like this in a way, with live tv added.

I think Apple's service will be live tv, plus all current and old content from the participating networks available on demand(iTunes).

The $30 - $40 a month will probably be for this service. But, so many people said this was too much.

 

[d21mike]

What is preventing ESPN from doing the same as CBS All Access, HBO Now, Netflix, Hulu and others? Why does Apple have to create their own bundle? I mean they are already on the Apple TV 3/4 which requires a Cable Subscription. If they could make a deal with Sling and also with Apple why not just offer it standalone. It appears to be something that cost the most and a lot of people what sports (not me but a lot).

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I'm a "cord-never." I've never subscribed to cable and I never will, whether it's literally cable or whether it's fed through an internet pipe. I'm never paying $40/month for a bunch of channels I don't want.

Where is this cheap gigabit fiber offered by any company that doesn't also have a TV subscription business that would be hurt by Apple taking it from them? And if it's someone offering both, should Apple bring something to market like this rumor, won't they A) raise the price of broadband only deals and/or B) bundle up the same channels plus a few good ones Apple doesn't include in their bundle and match or slightly beat the price (and not count that television against the monthly broadband cap)?

 

[Greg Gehr]

Just build in a beautiful OTA DVR Apple!

 

[SoAnyway]

This is a frustrated apple.

 

[Swift]

A good way to proceed would be for the government to simply make certain that producers and owners of all programming have the right to make a deal with multiple carriers. So if the cable company wants to carry a channel, they owe money. They have no right to exclusivity. A hit show or popular network can, like HBO offer itself to the Apple TV, and to any other streaming box, or to sell shows on iTunes, or any other platform, and all deals are separate. The producer sells advertising and streaming boxes supply additional information to the networks and programmers, which are all sold together, so some networks just show free on Apple TV, etc., based on the figures of additional viewership -- over time -- that the producer can now give, with far greater accuracy than idiotic and often totally inaccurate, ratings by Nielsens, etc. So maybe CBS, or CNN, or other channels, can be paid for by upping the advertising rates. The expansion of digital channels in local areas currently gives LA about 100 + on-air channels. Currently, that is used for cheap reruns, ethic multichannel networks, etc. Why not a CBS sports channel that feeds live sports over the air, while also showing other programming on others? Why not a premium channel over the air, that you can unlock with a subscription? Channels are almost totally obsolete. The sooner the media business acknowledges that, and cable becomes optical gigabit internet access, the better.