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

Apple Close to Completing Apple TV Deal with Time Warner Cable

Silverstring said:
Since I don't hold out much hope that people will read the article I posted earlier, I except a section of it here to illustrate that cable networks make their money from AFFILIATE fees (paid by the cable companies), NOT ad revenue, and certainly not per-episode purchases.

Source: http://stratechery.com/2013/the-cord-cutting-fantasy/
Click to expand...

That article was a depressing read, but it does a great job of illustrating why the networks are so hesitant to sign internet deals.

osaga said:
Time Warner (not affiliated with Time Warner Cable) owns these networks:
New Line Cinema, Time Inc., HBO, Turner Broadcasting System, The CW Television Network, TheWB.com, Warner Bros., Kids' WB, Cartoon Network, Boomerang, Adult Swim, CNN, DC Comics, Warner Bros. Animation, Cartoon Network Studios, Hanna-Barbera, and Castle Rock Entertainment.

CBS Corporation owns:
Showtime, part of the CW (with TWC), and all the CBS programing.

Discovery Communications owns:
28 network entertainment brands, including Discovery Channel, Military Channel, TLC, Animal Planet, Discovery Fit & Health and a family of digital channels. DCI also distributes BBC America and BBC World News.

The Walt Disney Company owns:
ABC broadcast television network, Disney Channel, ESPN, A+E Networks, LifeTime.

Scripps Networks Interactive owns:
Food Network, DIY Network, Cooking Channel, Travel Channel and Great American Country

Viacom Media Networks owns:
MTV, VH1, CMT, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, TV Land, Spike, Epix, Blink.

AMC Networks owns:
AMC, IFC, WE tv, and Sundance Channel; the art house movie theater IFC Center in New York City.

Fox owns: Fox channels. NBC owns: NBC channels
Click to expand...

ness96 said:
Ill pay more per episode.

I refuse to pay for a service that also wishes to serve me ads. I will never have another cable subscription. It's a slowly dying model.

I'm sorry, but the free market wins:

https://www.google.com/#gs_rn=19&gs...08,d.dmg&fp=609bc729568811d0&biw=1024&bih=622


I don't personally know anyone under the age of 50 who has cable. The model is dying. Yeah, it will change entertainment, but bring it on.
Click to expand...


I don't think we'll ever be able to subscribe to individual shows. The Networks would freak the **** out (based on the economics described in that article). But we have a nicely differentiated group of networks providing all that content for $$/mo to cable subscribers. They each get some slice of that pie. But Cable is slowly dying.

So maybe a solution is to have each major network provide an app and a monthly subscription to all of their shows/content. You have 10-15 major networks, and each one has a subscription fee of $10-$30. That way they can maintain their revenue stream. The content costs more. You're still subsidizing shows you don't care for, but not other networks. They could also provide an ad free version that costs more.
 
osaga said:
So maybe a solution is to have each major network provide an app and a monthly subscription to all of their shows/content. You have 10-15 major networks, and each one has a subscription fee of $10-$30. That way they can maintain their revenue stream. The content costs more. You're still subsidizing shows you don't care for, but not other networks. They could also provide an ad free version that costs more.
Click to expand...

And how do you propose to get this content to your house? The Internet -- which is TWC or whoever. So after you pay them, too, you're back at the same fee.
 
Ted Witcher said:
You have cable Internet. Then you should realize that "cable Internet" comes over the same literal pipe as "cable television" and is provided by the same company. The Internet is not disruptive in the same way cellphones are to landlines -- it may appear so, but it isn't. Not until the government deems a company like TWC is anti-competitive for controlling both cable access and Internet access. Whether cable television is useful to you, well that's on you. To me, it is useful.

----------



Let me be even more clear: if you cut out the middleman -- the cable TV part -- and just get your programming over the Internet (from the same company, btw), do you think your bandwidth charges will remain the same? Do you honestly think you've found a way to beat TWC out of some money, a way that will have a multibillion dollar business flummoxed at your genius? No, my friend. My bet, and it's a safe one, is that you will always pay. And me, too. Your only way out is to turn all of it off.
Click to expand...

You really don't understand what I'm saying at all.

1) I'm totally kosher with cable Internet. I'm not kosher with cable Internet monopolies. I'm fully aware that cable Internet prices would increase with the demise of cable TV. But how much? What if google continues to expand fiber service and continues to offer BETTER service at a competitive price point?

2)I am not kosher with cable TV. Hell, I'm not kosher with any service that charges me a monthly fee for the privilege of viewing ads. I'm not interested in affiliate fee subsidized model at all. I will NEVER purchase cable TV. I know no one below 50 who does.

3) I fully understand Netflix will raise their prices. I fully understand iTunes prices will increase. I fully understand the quantity of television series will decrease. I am OK with all of these points.

4). I'm not interested in 'outsmarting' or 'beating' TWC. I am interested in purchasing HBO GO without paying TWC for the privilege.

5) As long as TWC is the best option for Internet access in my area, I will continue to pay them for the highest speed tier that they will offer. When a better option becomes available, I will switch.

6) I am not alone: http://www.google.com/#sclient=tabl...08,d.dmg&fp=327822ca4812a238&biw=1024&bih=672

7). I'm still baffled by your "how would apple distribute content" argument. iTunes.

8). This isn't about TWC in particular.

Finally, I'll ask again: is the absurdity of arguing, in favor of the cable television status quo, on an apple focused forum lost on you?
 
jw2002 said:
Why is Apple making deals with cable companies to provide content that the customer is already receiving through the cable box?

Apple should be revolutionizing the way content is provided/delivered and kill off the cable companies -- just the way they revolutionized the market with the iphone and ipad.
Click to expand...

And if Apple kills off the cable companies do you think they are going to pass on the savings to the consumer? No competition = higher prices.
 
To everyone saying we "need" a subscription or "they won't give it away…"

No one is arguing that. I would like the option to PAY for channels a la carte. No one expects free. But since almost all I watch is sports and network TV, for example, I'd happily pay $5/month for WatchESPN and $10/month for all the Fox Sports Net channels. Hopefully the network channels would be free since they currently are over-the-air, but even at $2/month each I still would come out way ahead, even if I add a MLB.tv subscription into the mix.
 
ness96 said:
You really don't understand what I'm saying at all.

1) I'm totally kosher with cable Internet. I'm not kosher with cable Internet monopolies. I'm fully aware that cable Internet prices would increase with the demise of cable TV. But how much? What if google continues to expand fiber service and continues to offer BETTER service at a competitive price point?

2)I am not kosher with cable TV. Hell, I'm not kosher with any service that charges me a monthly fee for the privilege of viewing ads. I'm not interested in affiliate fee subsidized model at all. I will NEVER purchase cable TV. I know no one below 50 who does.

3) I fully understand Netflix will raise their prices. I fully understand iTunes prices will increase. I fully understand the quantity of television series will decrease. I am OK with all of these points.

4). I'm not interested in 'outsmarting' or 'beating' TWC. I am interested in purchasing HBO GO without paying TWC for the privilege.

5) As long as TWC is the best option for Internet access in my area, I will continue to pay them for the highest speed tier that they will offer. When a better option becomes available, I will switch.

6) I am not alone: http://www.google.com/#sclient=tabl...08,d.dmg&fp=327822ca4812a238&biw=1024&bih=672

7). I'm still baffled by your "how would apple distribute content" argument. iTunes.

8). This isn't about TWC in particular.

Finally, I'll ask again: is the absurdity of arguing, in favor of the cable television status quo, on an apple focused forum lost on you?
Click to expand...

1. See my post about anti-competitive practices. If Google or Verizon bring fiber to all of North America, great. I won't hold my breath for that roll-out, though. Mad Men is on now.

2. I don't know anyone below 50 or above 50 who does not have cable. Throw in with college kids and broke millenials if you want, that's cool.

3. If you're okay with all these points, how is that environment better than what we have now? The goal is cheaper/more quality, right? Or did I miss something?

4. You're interested in using the Internet without paying for Internet access (unless there's some new way HBO Go arrives in your home that I'm not aware of). I don't know what you expect in this world, I really don't. I'm interested in a lot of things, the majority of which will not come true.

5. Well, yes, of course.

6. This goes to my other point -- you want change, turn it off. Or tell TWC you're turning it off, then watch the discounts come flying.

7. Dude. Come on. iTunes, for the last time, travels over the Internet. iTunes is not some magical thing unrelated to TWC. You are now, and will continue, paying for it.

8. In the context of this conversation, I'm using TWC to refer to all big ISPs like it.

Not absurd. We're arguing over this cord-cutting nonsense, which will absolutely not leave the customer with a lower bill and the same or better quality programming. You may get cheaper, but you won't get better. You may get better, but you won't get cheaper. T'is the way of the world. And as far as the ATV is concerned, I've been advocating since my first post for Apple to add an HDD and Cablecard slots and just push TiVo out of the DVR market, because I believe their UI will be superior; it's a core competency. But I know that may be too old-school for you.
 
Last edited:
JonneyGee said:
To everyone saying we "need" a subscription or "they won't give it away…"

No one is arguing that. I would like the option to PAY for channels a la carte. No one expects free. But since almost all I watch is sports and network TV, for example, I'd happily pay $5/month for WatchESPN and $10/month for all the Fox Sports Net channels. Hopefully the network channels would be free since they currently are over-the-air, but even at $2/month each I still would come out way ahead, even if I add a MLB.tv subscription into the mix.
Click to expand...

But to have ESPN a la cart they would have to charge about $100/month to make the same money they do now. Is that what you really want? Because content creators are not going to take a loss just because you want a lower bill. The reason the system works now is because cable companies have the power to buy in bulk. I just can't see how these a la cart fantasies I read here are going to work.

I'm also tired of reading about how the cable companies are charging to show you ads. It's NOT the cable companies, it's the networks. That means that any a la cart system will include the same ads. If not more. The Hopper set top box will skip ads for you. They even went to court to fight on your behalf and you still think the cable companies want to show you ads.

I would love to have a lower bill too and only see the highest quality shows and movies. That however is unrealistic. If we all only paid for the shows we want that means all the other shows will go away. What will fill those time slots? You think it would be so awesome to have hours of dead air? The system would collapse and we would end up with nothing. A lot of you simply don't understand the mechanics of the entertainment industry. It is so much more complicated than just cutting ties with cable/sat providers.

----------
Ted Witcher said:
1. See my post about anti-competitive practices. If Google or Verizon bring fiber to all of North America, great. I won't hold my breath for that roll-out, though. Mad Men is on now.

2. I don't know anyone below 50 or above 50 who does not have cable. Throw in with college kids and broke millenials if you want, that's cool.

3. If you're okay with all these points, how is that environment better than what we have now? The goal is cheaper/more quality, right? Or did I miss something?

4. You're interested in using the Internet without paying for Internet access (unless there's some new way HBO Go arrives in your home that I'm not aware of). I don't know what you expect in this world, I really don't. I'm interested in a lot of things, the majority of which will not come true.

5. Well, yes, of course.

6. This goes to my other point -- you want change, turn it off. Or tell TWC you're turning it off, then watch the discounts come flying.

7. Dude. Come on. iTunes, for the last time, travels over the Internet. iTunes is not some magical thing unrelated to TWC. You are now, and will continue, paying for it.

8. In the context of this conversation, I'm using TWC to refer to all big ISPs like it.

Not absurd. We're arguing over this cord-cutting nonsense, which will absolutely not leave the customer with a lower bill and the same or better quality programming. You may get cheaper, but you won't get better. You may get better, but you won't get cheaper. T'is the way of the world. And as far as the ATV is concerned, I've been advocating since my first post for Apple to add an HDD and Cablecard slots and just push TiVo out of the DVR market, because I believe their UI will be superior; it's a core competency. But I know that may be too old-school for you.
Click to expand...

+1 I have to agree with all of this and your previous posts. It amazes me how people think its so easy to change the entire entertainment industry just because they don't care for some shows or channels. They ONLY want a handful of shows and screw the ones they don't want. It's okay for thousands of people to lose their jobs and careers, and I'm not talking about actors either. Gaffers, techs, camera operators, sound techs, lighting specialists and on and on and on. The naïveté of some people around here is astounding.
 
GoCubsGo said:
I say let some other poor soul pay, I'm on the brink of getting rid of cable all together.
Click to expand...

I would want to get rid of cable in a heart beat, but where I live (Netherlands) it's being sold in 1 package (Internet, cable, telephone) and the price setting is so, that it's not even worth considering an Internet only subscription. The market over here is truly an oligpoly, no healthy competition.
 
usersince86 said:
We ALL win if this happens! (well, except cable companies, I guess...)
Click to expand...

And people who actually want all those dumb channels. MTV and Spike, the horror!

----------
IJ Reilly said:
You can't blame the sports mess on the cable providers. The teams make their demands, the cable providers fork over, and we pay out. And if you're going to stick to your story that you don't know anyone under the age of 50 who subscribes to cable, then either you don't know many people under 50, or you don't know anyone who follows a local sports team. Either way, you've wrapped the implausibility meter around the far peg.

The point here is you should not make it sound as if anyone who still subscribes to cable is an old fuddie-duddie who just doesn't get it.
Click to expand...

Blame it on the market. So many people are willing to subscribe to cable, so cable companies provide their services at market price based on low supply (forgetting piracy) and high, high demand. People act as if they're price-gouging the public for precious drinking water.
 
Last edited:
Put a Cox app there then I'd be interested. This is stupid because now everyone will get the TWC app even if you don't have TWC in your area, because there's no App Store to control what's on your Apple TV screen.
 
If cable TV starts being offered over the Internet, that alone should cut the cable costs, right? Nobody would be forced to buy subscriptions from local cable companies. My cousin in his Verizon-less area could buy Verizon cable and watch it with Internet-based service like this. Suddenly, there would be way more competition everywhere.

Best of all, unless they are colluding, each cable company should STRIVE to put itself on the Internet to reach more users, right? They'll drive each other's prices down. The obstacle is that one person can give his login credentials to everyone.
 
MacRumors said:
An Apple TV app would likely operate in the same way, providing cable access and live television channels to Time Warner subscribers without the need for a cable box.
Click to expand...

Apple's long-term plan:

Step 1: Remake the music industry in Apple's own image. (Done.)
Step 2: Build out an app ecosystem on iOS. (Done.)
Step 3: App-ify the web. (Well underway.)
Step 4: App-ify television. (Finalizing preparatory deals.)
Step 5: Remake the television industry in Apple's own image. (Planning.)
 
While we here in UK are still waiting for:

BBC iPlayer
4OD
Lovefilm/Amazon Instant
SKY On Demand Services

We do get SKY News, but not even in HD!
 
e²Studios said:
Dream on, someone has to pay for that content and they're never going to give it away. Whether you pay a cable company or you pay Apple/Netflix/Hulu you will pay in some way for the content you watch, that aspect will never change.
Click to expand...

I think the idea is to separate the cable providers from the content delivery. Verizon etc. should just provide the connection and not burden me with inflexible packages I have absolutely no use for. I'd be happy to pay per channel or per show if the rates are reasonable and I don't have to pay for 500 other channels I never watch.
 
Unless this is 'a step' in letting me view content without a cable TV subscription thru my provider -- Charter -- I have no interest in this since I'm never going back to cable TV. So as it stands, it is disappointing news for my usage and not a positive for Apple TV.
 
donutbagel said:
Have fun typing stuff with that and finding it when it gets lost every day. No, I can't stand that thing. I use the iPhone with the Remote app, and that works beautifully.
Click to expand...

Not all of us are as disorganized as you are; I've never lost my Apple remote.

I don't use it for typing either, I have a MacBook for that.
 
ShiftClick said:
Am I not using my Apple TV right? I get more content is good, and I suppose this is for people not using their ATV's at home.

My ATV sits next to my TV if I had HBO/TWC/ESPN subscription why would I choose to watch it on the ATV2 over the regular cable box? And if I'm on the go wouldn't I be using the ipad iterations. I guess I just don't see the benefit for me with this new material. Is everyone excited about these apps because they use their ATV outside their home/cable?
Click to expand...

This, a million times this.

I have no idea in what alternate reality this makes sense. Where giving people just another way to view the content they are already paying for to begin with is in any way a 'privilege'. If I already have cable and a cable box why the hell do I need an app on my AppleTV?! :confused:

What I really would like to see is apps like HBOGo where you can purchase a monthly subscription JUST for that service (without a full Cable Subscription with a bunch of crap I'm not going to use) for $5-$15 / month. I have a feeling quite a few people would leap at the chance to get unrestricted access to shows like Game of Thrones and others a day after they're released without buying the season (A YEAR LATER) for $40 on iTunes. :mad:
 
bdavis89 said:
Checkmate indeed, which is why I'm afraid the cable companies might not ever let it happen. From what I read they have the networks bent over.
Click to expand...

It'll happen one way or another. It's just gonna take a lot longer cuz this is the cable co's bread & butter. It'll be an uphill battle for sure.
If they were smart, they would focus strictly on building the fastest, most ridiculously reliable Internet service & maybe even a different source of revenue. I'm just spitballing here, but maybe doubling down on a hotspot service for our portable devices ? Idk, but the next 5-10 years are gonna be very interesting to say the least.
 
alent1234 said:
once you figure the $50 a month for internet, the savings from a la carte vanish

FIOS is coming to me for $80 a month for TV and internet. TWC is now down to $100 per month for TV and internet with no more shoving the phone on to me. my TWC internet is $50. netflix is mostly crap. with all the on demand apps out there that use the cable logon i might as well pay the extra $20 a month and get lots more content
Click to expand...

How so ? I'm paying $40/month for Internet, & even if I buy a season pass for my wife for Housewives of NJ (shoot me) for $25, AND a Season of The Walking Dead for $42, it's still cheaper than my monthly Verizon bill that I just canceled. Also, I won't have to purchase the next season(s) for another 10-12 months.

Don't get me wrong, they do have good deals for new customers for the first year. But from months 13-24, & 25-36. They gouge the ***** out of you. No more promotional bundle, no more free hardware, & no more complimentary free channels. After a year, my Verizon bill shot up $30-$40/month. That's a fine & dandy, but once u call in for promos, they basically tell u to fugg off. They ONLY take care of new customers. No secret there.

Like I said before, I've cut the cord, & couldn't be happier. I've done this for a number of reasons. One, to save $$, two, I'm sick & tired of playing these games with these companies, & three, I want to be a part of changing the game for how we watch tv content. If enough consumers cut the cord, they don't have a choice to restructure their business. I'm not trying to talk anyone into doing the same, just spreading the knowledge. You do what you want with it.
 
kmoreau48 said:
Pretty sure they make a lot of money from ads.
I see people complaining about ads in free apps.. at least you can pay for the full version of that app for it to become ads free.

For cable TV we pay and we still get ads every 5 minutes.
Click to expand...

This. Is what infuriates me..... and my wife's grandfather. Lol

----------
Silverstring said:
Since I don't hold out much hope that people will read the article I posted earlier, I except a section of it here to illustrate that cable networks make their money from AFFILIATE fees (paid by the cable companies), NOT ad revenue, and certainly not per-episode purchases (you can bet that if the bread and butter of affiliate fees went away, prices for individual episodes would go WAY up, because the difference lost in ad revenue and affiliate fees combined would be huge. That the big thing...traditional cable subsidizes the ability to buy on a per-episode basis, too! You wouldn't be paying $1.99 if the networks didn't have ad revenue to fall back on).

Anyway, many like AMC, home of Breaking Bad and Mad Men, and wish they could pay JUST FOR THOSE TWO SHOWS. Hell, that includes me. But it wouldn't work. Check this out (the ESPN mentions reference an earlier part of the article):



Source: http://stratechery.com/2013/the-cord-cutting-fantasy/
Click to expand...

Ya well they're gonna have to restructure soon or later cuz i see this movement happening no matter what. Look how the music industry changed dramatically over the past 10 years, it's not anywhere near what it used to be. They just have to figure out different sources of revenue, & they will.
 
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
Back