Apple Enlists Networks to Negotiate With Local Affiliates in Streaming TV Talks

[MacRumors]

Apple's discussions with ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox for its much-rumored streaming TV service are gaining momentum, according to the New York Post. The report claims that Apple has enlisted networks to negotiate with local TV stations on their behalf, and the networks are said to be close to securing those rights with affiliate groups such as Tribune and Sinclair.

Networks are reportedly telling affiliates that they will be able to share the revenue generated from Apple's streaming TV service if they offer their feeds on the platform. The inclusion of local TV stations is important for the success of Apple's cable-cutter service, expected to launch in the fall for devices including iPhone, iPad and Apple TV. The service is speculated to cost between $10 and $40 per month.

At CBS, executives are talking to affiliates about conducting Apple negotiations on their behalf, one TV source confirmed.

At Fox, the network "has the ability to negotiate with Apple [for affiliates], or it will have it very soon," a second executive added.

Disney and CBS will likely be among the first networks to reach a deal with Apple for its à-la-carte streaming TV service, according to the report, although some sticking points remain in the negotiations. Cable channels such as Discovery and ESPN are also expected to be included in the subscription-based service, which is rumored to include a skinny bundle of around 25 channels.

Article Link: Apple Enlists Networks to Negotiate With Local Affiliates in Streaming TV Talks

 

[BeauPaul]

Yes

 

[Rogifan]

So basically TV has been delayed because of local channels? Is live streaming of local channels that important these days?

 

[840quadra]

Oddly enough, getting local news on Apple TV would be great. I can't quite reach HD-TV signal with my current antenna, due to the distance to the tower. If this is included, I would be more apt to join into the method. I have been totally fine just using iTunes, Netflix, YouTube for my entertainment needs, yet, still want local (video) news.

 

[Roadstar]

So basically TV has been delayed because of local channels? Is live streaming of local channels that important these days?

Seems like it, and it's super frustrating to have the Apple TV hardware release delayed just because of some streaming agreements, none of which will be available in Finland anyway.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

A service that gave me streaming access to the complete iTunes library of music, audiobooks, books, podcasts, tv and movies would interest me at $15 per month.

What I'd really like is a hybrid service: if I spend $15 on iTunes content, I am granted streaming for all of iTunes for one month from the date of purchase.

 

[bladerunner5]

Not sure why Apple has struggled so much with this. How did AT&T manage to get U-Verse up and running with local channels all over the U.S.?

 

[_Refurbished_]

Please, just add a home button to the remote. This is all I ask.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Local channels shouldn't be negotiated. They're free. The public owns the radio spectrum, and licenses them a segment of it in exchange for free programming. That's the deal. Streaming those channels over IP instead of OTA should be reserved for the few who cannot get the signal OTA, but this shouldn't be a revised AppleTV showstopper for the millions of people who get a perfectly fine OTA signal or don't care about those channels. They outnumber those that don't get an OTA signal and do want those channels by magnitudes.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

A service that gave me streaming access to the complete iTunes library of music, audiobooks, books, podcasts, tv and movies would interest me at $15 per month.

If we're including live TV in there, I'd pay $30/month for it easy.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Please, just add a home button to the remote. This is all I ask.

You can press and hold the "menu" button to get to the home screen right away. It's very easy.

 

[Geekazoid]

The inclusion of local TV stations is important for the success of Apple's cable-cutter service, expected to launch in the fall for devices including iPhone, iPad and Apple TV. The service is speculated to cost between $10 and $40 per month.​

​

Isn't the whole point of "cable cutting" to pay $0, unless I'm wrong, but charging people for a service kind of defeats that purpose. You'd be better off not cutting your cable in this case. Besides, Apple doesn't exactly need the $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$.00 (money).

 

[840quadra]

A service that gave me streaming access to the complete iTunes library of music, audiobooks, books, podcasts, tv and movies would interest me at $15 per month.

What I'd really like is a hybrid service: if I spend $15 on iTunes content, I am granted streaming for all of iTunes for one month from the date of purchase.

I doubt that would work, as in a way wouldn't it be considered double dipping? Essentially you are paying for the license to download / keep a specific show or season, I am sure the license holders would be reluctant to simply give away streaming access to other content for free, unless Apple is willing to give up more profits, or take a loss.

Not sure why Apple has struggled so much with this. How did AT&T manage to get U-Verse up and running with local channels all over the U.S.?

I think it has more to do with power, and people not wanting to give too much control to Apple. We have witnessed some of this push back with regards to past attempts at TV deals, as well as constant struggles with the music industry,

 

[Rogifan]

I don't get the whole skinny cable-like package thing. Two channels I watch frequently are Food Network and Cooking Channel. If they're not part of Apple's service it's useless to me. Why not then just get the cheaper cable or satellite tier that will most likely have more channels than TV will be offering. And once you subscribe to TV, Netfilx, HBO, Showtime, etc. it's not much cheaper than cable bundles are now. Will this TV offering allow us to watch live TV anywhere we want on our iOS or Macs? With DirecTV you can watch some channels live on your device (without needing to be on the same wifi network as your receiver) but not many. And certainly not any local affiliates or ESPN.

 

[martygras9]

So basically TV has been delayed because of local channels? Is live streaming of local channels that important these days?

I wasn't so sure and then I remembered NY1. Since I cut cable three years ago, that's pretty much the only thing that I miss. Having access to NY1 would be great.

 

[Rogifan]

Isn't the whole point of "cable cutting" to pay $0, unless I'm wrong, but charging people for a service kind of defeats that purpose. You'd be better off not cutting your cable in this case. Besides, Apple doesn't exactly need the $$$,$$$,$$$,$$$.00 (money).

It seems like Apple is going to be offering a skinny cable like package. Nothing ala carte.

 

[arbogast777]

I personally just keep the webpage for my local news on a tab on my iPhone then AirPlay it to the Apple TV every night at 10pm - works out fine

 

[Geekazoid]

It seems like Apple is going to be offering a skinny cable like package. Nothing ala carte.

Well...still you can get pretty good Internet TV these days for free.

 

[furi0usbee]

This all sounds great, but are we just going from one expensive bundle to a less expensive bundle? Still a bundle of channels we may not want. This doesn't seem like great strides to me.

 

[Geekazoid]

This all sounds great, but are we just going from one expensive bundle to a less expensive bundle? Still a bundle of channels we may not want. This doesn't seem like great strides to me.

Yes, it's quite clear that Apple doesn't realise or know what cable cutting actually means. LOL

 

[Avatar74]

Well...still you can get pretty good Internet TV these days for free.

That's why options exist. You can do a-la carte, you can do internet channel streaming of independent content from Youtube/Vimeo, whatever. Or you can pay for highly produced content by subscription fees or watching ads.

The internet was never a proposition that would make everything free to produce and consume. The proposition the internet enables is more diversity of choice.

 

[millerlite]

Local content? Killer feature

 

[Kar98]

If only there was a way to suck local channels right out of the air, like with some sort of "aerial" or "antenna".

 

[Geekazoid]

That's why options exist. You can do a-la carte, you can do internet channel streaming of independent content from Youtube/Vimeo, whatever. Or you can pay for highly produced content by subscription fees or watching ads.

The internet was never a proposition that would make everything free to prioduce and consume. The proposition the internet enables is more diversity of choice.

Well, how can I disagree with such logic (no sarcasm intended, I'm serious)? You have a good point there.

 

[millerlite]

Please, just add a home button to the remote. This is all I ask.

If you hold the menu button down on AppleTV, it takes you to the home page, no matter where you are.